Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Railway Strike

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given by the Governor of Kenya to the request of Mr. Tom Mboya, General Secretary of the Kenya Federation of Labour, for the establishment of an inquiry into the origins of the recent railway strike.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): Mr. Mboya did not ask the Governor for any such inquiry.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Under-Secretary kindly check that information? Is he aware that it was reported in the Press that Mr. Mboya made a speech demanding some form of investigation of the situation? Could there therefore be some consultation?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I have checked with the Governor. What appeared in the Press was a misunderstanding of Mr. Mboya's request to the Governor to intervene in the strike. He did not ask for inquiries, as far as I am aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Social Services

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the expansion of the social services in Hong Kong is now adequate to the need.

Mr. J. Amery: The tremendous increase in population since the war has made it quite impossible as yet to provide social services on a scale which would

be considered adequate; but I can say that in all the circumstances great progress has been made.

Mr. Driberg: In view of that perfectly accurate answer, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the idiotic suggestion in this Question has been included by some well-meaning fool in the film of the Duke of Edinburgh's Commonwealth tour, which is being distributed by the Central Office of Information? Since his Royal Highness would clearly not wish to have such "bull" fathered on him, will the hon. Gentleman communicate with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Mr. Amery: I have not seen the film, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI

Burns Commission (Report)

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to receive the Report of the Burns Commission on the Fiji Islands.

Mr. J. Amery: The Burns Commission will submit its report to the Governor of Fiji, by whom it was appointed. The report is expected to be in the hands of the Governor early next year.

Mr. Howard: Are the matters which gave rise to the recent disturbance in Suva likely to be covered by the Report?

Mr. Amery: I had better await the Report before attempting to answer that Question.

Disturbances

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the reasons which led to the calling out of the Territorial forces in Fiji to maintain the peace.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the nature of the recent disturbance in Fiji.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the riots which have taken place in Fiji.

Mr. J. Amery: On 7th December, there was a strike by employees of the oil


companies. Petrol supplies were quickly exhausted, and public transport services stopped.
On the afternoon of 9th December, a crowd assembled near Suva bus station for a meeting to be addressed by the secretary of the union to which the strikers belong. The crowd was swollen by people seeking transport home from work. A permit had not been granted for the meeting and, after being ordered to disperse, the crowd became unruly and eventually had to be dispersed by force. Shortly afterwards, a party of hooligans ran about the town throwing stones at shops and cars and doing considerable damage. Some looting took place after dark.
It was thought that the disorders might spread to other centres, and on 10th December the Governor took special powers to provide for public safety. Special constables had already been called out and, the police being fully extended, the Territorials were called out, and the assistance of the military requested to maintain law and order. A dusk-to-dawn curfew was imposed in Suva and Lautoka and at Nandi Airport.
During 10th December, stone-throwing continued, and the crowd in Suva had to be dispersed by tear smoke. In an effort to reduce the tension a message was broadcast by Fijian leaders, and public meetings were addressed by Fijians, union officials and Indian political leaders. This had a quietening effect.
The parties to the oil dispute have now agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, and work was resumed yesterday. The situation is returning to normal and the security measures are being relaxed.

Mr. Rankin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does it not seem that this is the prelude to an old story? Is he aware that among the people of Fiji there is a growing desire to have a greater share in the running of their own affairs? Does he not realise that, according to Press statements, it is widely believed that this desire—expressed in these ways, of which we do not approve—is really the basic cause of the trouble in Fiji today; and could he say what plans the Government have in mind to give these people a greater

share in the running of their own affairs?

Mr. Amery: I am not sure that I would go far with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the cause of this demonstration. It was, I think, mainly hooliganism and not in any sense an expression of organised political view. For example, it is notable that, of the arrests made afterwards, only one was of a striker, so I do not think that strike action or political action was at the back of these events. With regard to the future, I think we must wait to study the Report of the Burns Commission. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission has already reported, but as far as I know, its Report is not yet in the hands of the Government.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Under-Secretary give some information as to the nature and cause of the strike itself? He referred to it but did not give any indication as to what actually was the cause of it.

Mr. Amery: The cause of the strike was a straightforward request for an increased minimum wage. I did draw the attention of the House a moment ago to the fact that only one striker was arrested when the demonstration was over. There were about 130 arrests of hooligans, who had no connection whatever with the strikers. They were simply taking advantage of the disturbed situation in the town. As I was saying, the cause of the strike was a straightforward economic request for higher wages. It has now been submitted to arbitration, the strike has been called off, and work has been resumed.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman's answer is not at all satisfactory. Is he aware that both the Fijians and the Indians are particularly peaceful people; that it is very strange that this sudden outburst of what he calls hooliganism should take place, and that there may well be a deeper cause for it? Will he undertake to look into this matter much more carefully and not just write it oil as being just a few hooligans floating about?

Mr. Amery: We are not writing it off in that way. I was anxious to tell the House our view that this event was not the direct result of industrial or


political action. It arose from hooliganism, very largely connected with the fact that public transport was affected, as a result of which a number of people were trying to get home, but could not.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my hon. Friend specifically say that local Indians who, according to Press reports here, are determined to drive out British traders and administrators, are not, in fact, politically involved at all?

Mr. Amery: In the last phases of the disturbance, both Indian and Fijian leaders appealed to the people to lay off disturbance and did all they could to prevent any inter-racial quarrels taking place.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Under-Secretary assure us that he will take advantage of the warning he has been given to bring about effective and swift political action in the light of the Burns Report when it comes along? Will he not consider immediately looking at the appointment of Fijians to the present Legislative Council? I understand that those appointments are made mainly on the recommendation of the chiefs and that one of the causes of political unrest is that these Fijians are not sufficiently representative.

Mr. Amery: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to see what Sir Alan Burns and his colleagues have reported before we attempt to anticipate what the next stage should be.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Emergency Regulations

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to Regulation 35 of the Nyasaland Emergency Regulations which makes it an offence, punishable with 14 years' imprisonment or£1,000 fine or both such imprisonment and fine, to do any act or publish anything likely to undermine the authority of, or the public confidence in, the Government of Nyasaland or the Government of the Federation; whether his department was consulted before this Regulation was made; if he will give particulars of the number of persons

who have been convicted of this offence, the sentences imposed upon them and the number acquitted; and how many prosecutions for this offence are now pending.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir. The Governor did not consult my right hon. Friend before making the Nyasaland Emergency Regulations; but my right hon. Friend, of course, is aware of the provisions of the Regulations. Four persons have been convicted under Regulation 35. Three received prison sentences of 25, 12 and 5 months, respectively, and the fourth was fined£1.
Nine persons have been acquitted of charges under the Regulation; no prosecutions are pending.

Mr. Foot: Since the Regulation is calculated to stifle every kind of political discussion in Nyasaland regarding the slightest criticism of the Territorial Government or the Federal Government, will the hon. Gentleman consider withdrawing it?

Mr. Amery: The figures I have just given of the sentences and fines imposed show that the Governor has in no way abused the considerable powers given to him under the Regulation.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Detained Prisoners

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons interned under the Nyasaland Emergency Regulations have appealed to the Advisory Committee; in how many cases the Committee has recommended release; and in how many cases the Governor has accepted such recommendations.

Mr. J. Amery: Seventy detainees have appealed to the Advisory Committee and in 24 cases the Committee recommended release. In 19 cases the Governor accepted the recommendation and ordered conditional release.

Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman say in how many cases the Governor did not accept the recommendations?

Mr. Amery: If my arithmetic is right, 19 out of 24 means 5 cases.

Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to place in the Library of the


House particulars of these cases, especially the statement of reasons for detention furnished to these five whose release has now been recommended by the Advisory Committee but who have not yet been released?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir; the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Governor's decision on those recommendations are confidential.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: rose—

Mr. Ellis Smith: There are 126 Questions on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Thomson: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn in connection with these Emergency Regulations to the speech that the Governor of Nyasaland made in Salisbury, in which he said that it was vital that the constitutional talks next year should take place in an atmosphere of peace, and that therefore the state of emergency must continue? Does this mean that it is the Government's policy that the state of emergency must continue until the 1960 talks?

Mr. Amery: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN RHODESIA

Settlement Scheme

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is his intention that assistance under the settlement scheme in the Eastern Province of Rhodesia will be given to Africans as well as Europeans.

Mr. J. Amery: The only current settlement schemes in the Eastern Province of Northern Rhodesia are in native reserve and native trust land and are exclusively African.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a sentence in the Press said that there was a scheme for specially assisting Europeans in this area? I want to be certain that we are not going to start another White Highlands scheme there.

Mr. Amery: There are schemes under discussion in other areas in the Eastern Province, but the current settlement schemes already in progress are in native reserves and native trust land and are exclusively African.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Dr. Banda (Visit)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why permission was refused for Dr. Hastings Banda to be visited in detention by Sir John Moffat.

Mr. J. Amery: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on 10th December.

Mr. Thomson: Is it not a bit stupid and shortsighted to treat Sir John Moffat—who can play a great reconciling role in the present difficulties—in this humiliating way, and to treat Dr. Banda, with whom the Government will finally have to negotiate on equal terms, as though he were a common criminal? What representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Federal Government about this? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these are our political prisoners, imprisoned on our political decision, and is it not highly unsatisfactory that any arrangements for political discussions with these political prisoners should be in the hands of the Federal Government?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has ranged fairly wide. It is not for me to say what representation should be made to the Federal Government; that is a matter for the Commonwealth Relations Office. As has been stated already, the question of visits to people detained in a Federal institution is a matter for the Federal authorities. The conditions attaching to visits are governed by prison regulations.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Under-Secretary realise what stupidity it is to refuse permission for political discussions to take place between these two gentlemen? Do not the Government realise that they are really convicting themselves in the minds of all honourable people unless they allow persons of the competence and character of Sir John Moffat to discuss with Dr. Hastings Banda what is to be the future of the territory?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his own opinion in these matters, but he must remember


that one of the objects of detention is to take the person so detained out of current political circulation. and it is very difficult to make an exception for one visitor and not for others.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Under-Secretary want Dr. Hastings Banda and other Africans to be able to express their views in front of the Commission that the Government have now set up? How will Dr. Banda be able to do this if he is denied access to those with whom he can take counsel? Could not the Government get themselves out of their own difficulty by releasing him forthwith?

Mr. Amery: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a completely different question. Having private conversations when in detention with private individuals and giving evidence before a Commission are entirely different things. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question deals with a matter that cannot be decided until the Governor thinks that conditions are suitable for Dr. Banda's release.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CAMEROONS

Refugees (French Cameroons)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will grant political asylum in the British Cameroons to refugees, other than prohibited immigrants, from the French Cameroons who have committed no criminal offence.

Mr. J. Amery: Requests for political asylum have been granted in the past. I am sure that any future requests will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that this is the situation? Is he aware of reports that a number of those coming from the French Cameroons owing to the turbulent situation there are now imprisoned and detained or are the subject of deportation orders? Can he give a categorical assurance that those who are genuine political refugees from the French Cameroons are being granted asylum?

Mr. Amery: Political asylum has been granted in several cases in the comparatively recent past to genuine political

refugees, and I am sure that any future requests for asylum will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Brockway: As the French Cameroons are to receive their independence on 1st January, would the Under-Secretary's Department use its influence to secure an amnesty in the French Cameroons to celebrate that event?

Mr. Amery: That would be going a little beyond my present responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Health Survey, Luapula

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will place in the Library a copy of the interim report. published on 26th October, of the survey into the health of African communities living in the Luapula Province of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. J. Amery: I am consulting the Governor and will write to the hon. Member.

Mrs. Castle: I am not at all clear. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that he will write to the Governor to obtain a copy and will put it in the Library? Surely this is a request to which the Governor must accede if the request is made by the Under-Secretary? Is it not a fact that this interim report shows that bilharzia, malaria and hookworm are endemic to this area, and that it is the responsibility of this House to see that appropriate action is taken? Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that this Report, with which the territorial Government of Northern Rhodesia is associated, will be placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. Amery: All I am saying is that I have not got a copy in my hands. I am consulting the Governor in order to get a copy and I am awaiting any comments that he may wish to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Independence

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement in respect of the result of recent elections in Nigeria and the


procedural time-table between now and the establishment of Nigerian independence.

Mr. J. Amery: The Northern People's Congress will be the largest party in the new House. I understand that the Governor-General has invited its Leader in the House, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the present Prime Minister, to form a Government.
My right hon. Friend's predecessor told the 1958 Constitutional Conference that if a resolution was passed by the new Federal Parliament early in 1960 asking for independence, Her Majesty's Government would agree to that request and would introduce a Bill in Parliament to enable Nigeria to become fully independent on 1st October, 1960.
I am sure the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing their cordial good wishes to the new Government of Nigeria, as it is the last chance we shall have of doing so before the House rises.

Mr. Sorensen: Whilst expressing every agreement with the sentiments uttered by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether there is any information available on the possibility of a coalition between any two of the parties?

Mr. Amery: I have no information to give the House at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Mr. Mintoff (Communication)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the communication recently addressed to him by Mr. Mintoff opens up prospects of negotiations being resumed toward a settlement of outstanding problems.

Mr. J. Amery: My right hon. Friend received a letter from Mr. Mintoff shortly before he left Malta. The letter does not appear to indicate any basic change in Mr. Mintoff's position, but my right hon. Friend is studying it carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will institute an

inquiry into the merits of corporal punishment with similar terms of reference to those given to the committee which reported in 1938; and if he will arrange for the report of that committee to be republished for the information and guidance of the public today;
(2) when the question of corporal punishment was last made the subject of official inquiry; to what extent the report is now available; and if he will either arrange for it to be republished or institute a similar inquiry now.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders to consider specifically and report further upon the advisability of restoring the penalty of corporal punishment and of extending its application to all crimes of violence against the person.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The last official inquiry into corporal punishment was that conducted by the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment which reported in 1938. The Committee's report was reprinted in 1952 and I understand that the Stationery Office still hold stocks and would reprint in the normal course of business if an increase in demand made it necessary to do so.
I doubt whether another inquiry on the lines of the Departmental Committee would be useful, but I am considering my hon. Friend's suggestion that the problem should be referred to my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders.

Mr. Iremonger: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will take note of the fact that there is considerable public anxiety on the question whether the Government are really more concerned with the protection of the criminal than with the protection of society, and that it would therefore be in the general public interest that the public should be reassured that the Government really have sound evidence for believing that corporal punishment it totally ineffective as a deterrent?

Mr. Butler: That is why I said in my Answer that I would see advantage in referring this matter to the Advisory


Council on the Treatment of Offenders, which has already given me such good advice, particularly about young offenders. I have not finally made up my mind, because I have only just had an opportunity of considering these questions, but the more advice we can get on this matter the more sense and perspective we can get both here and, I hope, in another place also.

Sir T. Moore: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's original reply, will he appreciate that economic and social conditions have vastly changed since 1938 when unemployment was rife and when people committed crimes of violence with robbery as a possible or inevitable consequence, whereas today much of the hooligan class commits crimes apparently almost for the fun of doing so, and certainly not always with gain as the reason? Things have altogether changed since 1938.

Mr. Butler: One of our puzzles is that with the greater prosperity we have certainly not got less crime, and in some respects we have more. I understand the anxieties on this subject. I have e expressed my own views, and if I can get good advice on the subject, so much the better.

Miss Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman not listen too much to the hysteria on this matter which comes from h is own back benches?

Mr. Butler: I think I have remained fairly calm, and I propose to go on doing so.

Housing Estates, London (Patrolling)

Dr. A. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the local authorities concerned on the need to empower the Metropolitan Police to patrol private roads and paths on local authority housing estates in London; what conclusions he has come to; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has had consultations with representatives of the London County Council, and is arranging for certain patrolling of the council's housing estates. No special power is required.

Dr. Glyn: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that considerable anxiety has arisen from the fact that the L.C.C. has already said that it is empowered to do this, but so far no agreement has been reached? Is my hon. and learned Friend also aware that Wandsworth Borough Council, which is the largest borough in London, has already arranged an amicable agreement with the police whereby their estates are patrolled?

Mr. Renton: The disposition of the police force is a matter for the Commissioner of Police, and it is open to any local authority within the Metropolitan Police area to make an approach to the Commissioner.

Training School, Redhill (Visits)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the obvious difficulties involved to parents who live a considerable distance away in visiting boys who, under court orders, are receiving approved school training at The Royal Philanthropic Society's School, Redhill, other than at week-ends, why facilities are not available for them to visit on either Saturdays or Sundays; and, in view of the importance of such visits, whether he will take steps to ensure that the welfare of the boys in this respect receives the consideration expected from such schools.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Visits by relatives to boys in the Royal Philanthropic Society's Training School at Redhill may be made on any week day or Sunday. While a boy is in the classifying school, where he spends a fortnight or so to enable his needs to be assessed and a suitable training school to be chosen for him, his parents are invited to visit him and discuss his future with the staff. To secure that adequate time may be given to this particular interview between parents and staff, parents are asked to visit where possible otherwise than at week-ends; but when they can only visit at weekends their wishes are met.

Mr. Dodds: If what the hon. Gentleman says is right, why is there printed on the form sent to parents, "It is most unlikely that we shall be able to arrange


visits on Saturdays or Sundays"? Surely it must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that parents assume that this means they cannot make visits on Saturdays or Sundays? In view of what he says, will he now arrange that these words will be removed from the form so that those parents who live a long way from the school will be able to go there on Saturdays and Sundays?

Mr. Vosper: I should like to see the form. I think it relates to the classifying school for the purpose of special interview, but most certainly I will arrange that parents of boys at this school may visit it on any day of the week.

Albert Medal

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider making a grant to holders of the Albert Medal in gold.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It has never been the custom for civilian awards for gallantry made by the Sovereign to be associated with monetary grants from Government funds, and I do not think it would be appropriate to make an exception in this case.

Mr. Dugdale: Is this not an exceptional medal? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as I know, there are only three or four holders of it and that the sum involved would not be very great? Is it not a fact that, in the case of the George Cross, consideration has been given to a possible award?

Mr. Butler: What I have said is correct. There is a difference in the case of the Victoria Cross, which is accompanied by a monetary grant. As I have said, awards for gallantry made by the Sovereign are not accompanied. While I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's interest, I do not think we can depart from precedent.

Industrial Injuries (Deaths)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the outcome of his discussions with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance regarding the proposal that all coroners' verdicts of death due to, or following, industrial injury should be automatically notified to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, so that widows do not lose their benefits through failure to claim.

Mr. Vosper: I understand that the hon. Member has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance explaining our reasons for thinking that the arrangement which he proposes would have a number of disadvantages.

Mr. Allaun: May I thank the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions for the great care they have devoted to this matter but ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not feel nevertheless that in clear cases of death from industrial accident the coroner could, and should, notify? As most of these cases are straightforward, could not the coroner be requested, not necessarily compelled, to notify and then could not the Minister, after a few inquiries, advise the widow to apply and thus avoid the unfortunate kind of case to which I have recently drawn the Minister's attention?

Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Member appreciates, my right hon. Friend has no power to direct coroners, but I believe that generally they will respond to the sentiments of the hon. Member. I will see that his remarks are again drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Jurors' Allowances

Mr. Whitlock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the amount of expenses paid to members of a jury for a daily sitting; and the amount paid in cases where members of a jury are detained overnight.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent jurors are reimbursed for expenses they incur when court proceedings last for more than one day.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Under the Jurors' Allowances Regulations a juror is entitled to receive a subsistence allowance of 3s. 6d. where the period of time away from his place of residence or of business or employment on any one day is not more than four hours, and 7s. where the period is more than four hours. In addition, where he is away overnight he may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred for board and lodging, up to a maximum of 27s. 6d. Compensation for loss of earnings may also be paid, up to 20s. for a period of not


more than four hours, and for a period of more than four hours in any one day up to 40s.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these jurors are rendering a valuable public service with very modest reimbursement for the expenses they incur? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not even High Court judges with dinner engagements are entitled to hustle them into speedy adjudication on the cases that come before them?

Mr. Butler: I cannot refer to the particular case, since the men in question have appealed and the case is sub judice. In general, however, I should like to pay tribute to the services rendered by jurors.

Service Voters

Mr. McLaren: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for entries in electoral registers relating to Service voters to be reviewed or re-registered annually, with a view to the elimination of the names of persons no longer possessing a Service qualification.

Mr. Vosper: Arrangements already exist for the removal of the names of those who have ceased to have a Service qualification. An alteration of these arrangements on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would require legislation and my right hon. Friend is not at present convinced that there is a case for He will be glad to examine any evidence sent to him.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last election many people who were shown as Service voters had been out of the Service for probably ten years or more?

Mr. Vosper: If the right hon. Gentleman can send me details of specific cases, I will examine them to see where the existing machinery has failed.

Removal of Vehicles (Contents)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the existing methods adopted by the Metropolitan Police when towing away motor cars which are causing an obstruction; whether he is aware that the police have interfered with private documents and personal

possessions found in such motor cars; and whether he will give general directions to them, in order to protect the public from having their motors subjected to general search.

Mr. Renton: The police are required by The Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1957, to make arrangements for the safe custody of cars and of the contents of cars removed from the roads under the Regulations. The arrangements made by the Commissioner of Police provide in certain circumstances for removable property to be listed and stored in a safe place. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that these arrangements are not satisfactory.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the listing of objects found in a motor car is one thing and the emptying of contents of brief cases or other cases is quite another thing and that Regulation 6 of the Statutory Instrument to which he has referred relates only to the custody of the vehicle and gives the police no right of general search? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman point out that the protection of the public and the listing of objects is one thing, but that the examination of documents found within cases is quite different and grossly in excess of the powers given to the police under these regulations?

Mr. Renton: A great many separate issues are raised by that supplementary question. I should, however, point out that Regulation I of the Regulations states that a vehicle includes the load carried in the vehicle. There is no doubt whatever about the power of the police to list articles found in a vehicle. It is not the police practice to empty brief cases, but to protect both the public and police in cases of dispute as to what may have been contained in brief cases, especially when valuable articles are involved, it has been the practice hitherto not to empty the cases and list every article, but to note broadly what a case appears to contain from a superficial examination and the mere opening of it. Even this practice, however, has been experimentally suspended during the Christmas period. Instead, other arrangements are being made which, it is hoped, will give equally good protection to both the police and the public.

Mr. Thorpe: Can we be told what those other arrangements are?

Mr. Renton: I cannot go into it all at Question Time, but, briefly, the new arrangements consist of the sealing of the car where that is possible.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Whatever the Regulations say, may we have an assurance that since most of these cars are collected within an hour or so after they have been towed away, there will not be any interference with brief cases in any car?

Mr. Renton: Certainly, that is so where it is practically and physically possible to seal up the car. Where that is not possible, however, it is necessary to list the contents of the car, including the posibility of any valuables that are there.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If the car cannot be sealed, would it not be simpler to seal the brief case?

Mr. Renton: That is a most constructive suggestion and I will invite the Commissioner's attention to it.

Prisoners (National Insurance)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that one of the obstacles to the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners is that, because their National Insurance cards are unstamped, they are unable to draw benefit, and potential employers become aware of their records; and what progress has been made towards ensuring that all prisoners are enabled to earn enough money, while serving their sentences, to have fully stamped cards when they leave prison.

Mr. Vosper: Ex-prisoners who are ineligible for National Insurance benefit and need help are given National Assistance. The lack of a fully stamped card is not peculiar to ex-prisoners and does not identify them as such. As regards the general question of prisoners' earnings, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 72 to 74 of the White Paper on "Penal Practice in a Changing Society".

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman know anything about the difficulties that these men experience in getting National Assistance—for one thing, very often not having a fixed address as soon as they come out of

prison? Besides discussing the matter with his expert advisers, who, no doubt, do their best, and with the valuable voluntary societies, has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered talking to an ex-prisoner himself?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, indeed. I will look specifically at the question of National Assistance. The more fundamental question is that of earnings for prisoners, which is a more difficult but important issue.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend's proposal about the stamping of National Insurance cards has the support of all voluntary prison workers?

Mr. Vosper: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. There are, however, other categories who would have to be considered before that was done.

Miss Bacon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that if that course were to be adopted, it would go a long way to help a prisoner to feel at home in society and not an outcast when he comes out of prison?

Mr. Vosper: I accept that, but this matter is associated with the question of prison earnings, which is a difficult and complex issue. It would not be easy to exempt this category of people from having their cards stamped.

Motor Vehicles (Dangerous Loads)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the detailed code of marking vehicles carrying dangerous substances to be published.

Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Member is aware, discussions with the interests concerned are proceeding satisfactorily, but I cannot yet say when the code will be published.

Mr. Allaun: As it is six years since Salford fire brigade first raised the matter, will the Minister speed up publication to prevent the possible seriousness of such an accident? Is he aware that without these markings, fire brigades and the police are often uncertain how to act quickly and safely in an emergency, particularly in a built-up area?

Mr. Vosper: I am sorry that this matter has taken a rather long time. The position is that agreement has now been reached with the trade on the general form of the code and the trade is preparing a general list of the substances with code letters added. Negotiation is needed with local authorities, but I hope that we have now reached the end of the process.

Stipendiary Magistrates (Police Evidence)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority instructions are given by his Department to stipendiary magistrates never to cross-question any police officer in open court but to deal with them privately in the magistrate's private room.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot trace that any such instructions have ever been given by the Home Office.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the allegations that were made by Mr. Herbert Malone, a former stipendiary magistrate who retired, may we take it from the Home Secretary's reply that magistrates treat police officers in precisely the same way as all other witnesses?

Mr. Butler: First of all, if Mr. Malone did make these allegations, I can find no confirmation of the truth of them. Secondly, I equally agree that the issue of instructions by the Home Office in the terms suggested by the hon. Member would be improper.

Motoring Offences (Ticket System)

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to amending the law to enable police officers to impose fines on the spot.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the introduction of a ticket system of fines for traffic offences in the Metropolitan area, as practised in the United States of America, details of which have been sent to him, in order to save the time of the police and improve the enforcement of traffic discipline on the roads.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am considering the desirability of introducing a system, similar to one form of the ticket system in use in America, which would enable drivers who admit parking and similar offences to pay a fixed penalty to a court wthout formal proceedings. I think that a system of this kind is to be preferred to empowering police officers to impose fines on the spot, since the offender is given the opportunity of appearing before a court if he wishes to do so. I am not yet, however, in a position to announce a final decision.

Mr. Royle: In many places that answer will give a great deal of satisfaction, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large body of opinion that such a system even as he suggests would be against the ideals of British justice, that it does to some extent make a policeman both judge and jury in the situation of that kind? Will he give it very serious consideration indeed?

Mr. Butler: Yes. The fact that I had already considered this matter and was able to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question shows that. This is another opportunity I have had this morning to refer to another place, and I hope that they will observe that action is being taken on certain matters. In regard to the anxieties of the hon. Member, he will see that we are taking them into consideration and are ready to take the right action when the time comes.

Police (Royal Commission)

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the terms of reference for the committee of inquiry into police and public relationships will include the question of relations with coloured immigrants.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce the composition and terms of reference of the proposed committee to inquire into the relations of the police and the public and the conditions of the police force generally.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer to the proposed committee of inquiry into the relationship between police and public the case of Michael Sinnot, of St. Helens, details of which have been communicated to him by the hon. Member for St. Helens.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made yesterday.

Mr. Hoyle: I apologise for the fact that my Question follows a question I was able to put to the Prime Minister yesterday on this matter, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real difference with regard to these people and the general public, that here is a particular difficulty? The right hon. Gentleman may remember that some of us have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with him. May it be that the Commission may look into this matter as a special problem?

Mr. Butler: Yes. What my right hon. Friend said yesterday was that the Commission will be concerned because part of its terms of reference deal with relations between the police and public. I have no doubt that this aspect, which is so important, will arise.

Mr. Spriggs: I should like to raise this question with the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the case of Michael Sinnot of St. Helens. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the parents, one of whom is totally blind, co-operated with the police to the fullest extent, that then, after the parents allowed them to take him outside the door for questioning, the police took the boy six miles away from home for interrogation, without informing the parents? Is it not time that this House was provided with an opportunity for examination of such complaints as this, with a view to clearing the air and putting the police in their position and bringing about proper relationships between the police and the public?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I am aware of the difficulties of this case. I think I must ask for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, because I am not really responsible for answering questions on this matter. I understand that the chief constable has written to the hon. Member and that this case may be sub judice. It does not fall within my responsibility, but, as was announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday, a Commission has deliberately been set up, and, as I mentioned to the House on a previous occasion, it has amongst its terms of reference the question of accountability, and that may help to relieve the anxieties of some

hon. Members in relation to the future constitutional position of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Spriggs: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the police in this case were not the local authority police but police from outside the county borough authority? Is he aware that there was no consultation with the police chief or any of his officers and that this incident took place without the knowledge of the local police force?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (TELEVISION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the consultations which have taken place on the advisability of televising the proceedings of the House of Commons; what arrangements are proposed; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he will consult the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to making preparations for the proceedings during Question Time in the House of Commons to be filmed and shown on television at the maximum viewing time on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday after the Christmas Recess;
(3) whether, during his consultations about televising the proceedings of the House of Commons, he will ensure that the whole of Question Time shall be televised unedited, and that any other proceedings which are televised shall be broadcast unedited wherever practicable.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will consult the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, with a view to the preparation of 15-minute programmes to be televised nightly similar to "Today in Parliament" on sound broadcasting.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am not yet in a position to add to the reply I gave on 10th December to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, in regard to Question No. 46, that there are no technical


reasons against that, and, if the Prime Minister accepts that there are no technical reasons why it should not be applied, will he consider an experiment based upon the suggestions in the Question in order that the matter can be considered?

The Prime Minister: As I have said before, I do not think it is a question for me or even for the Government, but a question for the House of Commons as a whole. It is not whether I will consider these things or not, but that the whole House must try to decide what it wishes in this matter. I have only said that we are making some inquiries, both on the technical points and on the other side of it, and I hope very soon after we, return to be able to take the matter further. I regard it as essentially a House of Commons question for the House of Commons as a whole.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the Prime Minister feel that television, properly used, now provides man with the possibility of a truer democracy. since he can both see and judge his elected representatives at work? In the inquiries now taking place, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, while showing for eight hours a day will probably kill off most viewers or, at least, their interest, a shorter version produced on the admirable lines of "Today in Parliament" might stimulate interest in politics?

The Prime Minister: I think there are some rather double-edged points in what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am very grateful for his tribute to my election broadcast.

Mr. Gower: May I ask the Prime Minister if, in any consideration of this matter through the usual channels or otherwise, he will consider the importance of the proposition that if any decision is taken, the television authorities, all of them, should have complete freedom to edit such proceedings broadcast in the way which they think proper, and not in a way necessarily to suit the desires of this House? In other words, hon. Members should not have the slightest idea what stage of the proceedings would be likely to be televised?

The Prime Minister: All these questions arise, and parts of them, of course, depend on some of the technicalities of photography and so forth.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the Prime Minister's comment that this was essentially a matter for the House as a whole, which I warmly welcome, has he had time to consider the suggestion I made a few days ago that this is a matter which could very well be considered by a Select Committee of this House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; we shall take that into account. I think the first thing is to get certain technical information available for the committee or any other method.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA (ADVISORY COMMISSION)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Parliamentary Commission to go to Central Africa to prepare for the constitutional review of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: Why not? Why is the Prime Minister so determined to undermine the authority of this House in relation to the future of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Is he aware that the African political movement in the two Protectorates are determined to boycott the Monckton Commission because of its unsatisfactory composition? Is he also aware that an African Member of the Nyasaland Legislative Council has introduced a Motion to the effect that Africans have no confidence in the Monckton Commission and will not co-operate with it, unless its composition is changed and all political detainees are released to take part in the 1960 conference? In view of this, is it not fatuous to send a Commission out there at all?

The Prime Minister: I was asked whether I would set up a Parliamentary Commission, which was our hope, to associate both sides of Parliament with this Commission. I am only sorry that that hope was not in one respect fulfilled.

Mr. Gaitskell: Has the Prime Minister seen Sir Roy Welensky's comments on the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission? May I refresh his memory on this matter? Sir Roy Welensky said:
I would never be a party to any Commission coming out here to sit in judgment on


the Federation and deciding whether it was to continue or not. You can say that—
he said to the interviewer—
in no uncertain terms.
He went on to say that it cannot suggest alternatives to Federation, and added:
I do not think this would be in their terms of reference.
Could the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with Sir Roy Welensky's interpretation?

The Prime Minister: I made it perfectly clear in the discussion what was my view of the terms of reference and what the Commission could or could not do. I do not think we add to that at this moment by trying to take one statement against another and trying to make political capital out of it, for that is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. I said that I believed that this Commission will do a great piece of work, and I also believe that it is the wish of a great number of Members on that side of the House—of the right hon. Gentleman's party—to join in it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since one major reason why we felt unable to join the Commission was the terms of reference, will the Prime Minister kindly answer my question whether he does or does not agree with Sir Roy Welensky's interpretation?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Really, this is an extraordinary situation. Sir Roy Welensky gave this interview to the Daily Telegraph some days ago—it was reported on 8th December. It was surely known to the Prime Minister. Are we to say that he has not made up his mind what he thinks about Sir Roy Welensky's comments?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but I think it is an extraordinary situation when the right hon. Gentleman tries to raise this—not on his own account, not that he thought it so important, by putting down a Question himself—but out of a supplementary question to a Question asked from below the Gangway.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister's answers get more and more extraordinary. He knows perfectly well that it is a well established convention in this House for the Leader of the Opposition not to put down Questions on the Order Paper. He knows perfectly well that it is in order and is normal for the Leader of the Opposition to raise issues of this kind in supplementary questions.

The Prime Minister: It is quite in order, but I was asked to comment on a text without having the opportunity of seeing the text. The right hon. Gentleman's position in his party is so weak that he is trying to make up for it. I do not blame him, he is doing his best.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that this kind of blustering and invective will not get him easily out of the hole he has made for himself? Why does he not answer the question and give us his comments on Sir Roy Welensky's interpretation?

The Prime Minister: I refuse to answer a question about a statement made by the Prime Minister of a territory in the Commonwealth without seeing the text.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL BALLET COMPANY

Mr. Kelley: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to revoke the Royal Charter granted to the Royal Ballet Company.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that most people in this country take a great pride in the achievements of the Royal Ballet Company and they would he opposed to any such step.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT TALKS

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister whether he will put forward a plan for disengagement in Central Europe at the forthcoming Summit talks.

The Prime Minister: We have never supported what is usually called "disengagement". What we do support are the provisions for controlling armaments in an agreed zone in Europe which were contained in the Western plan put forward at the Geneva Conference in May.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will say whether, in the course of his consultations with other members of the Western Alliance, such as France and Germany, he has found any support for the ideas on disengagement which he put forward at the General Election?

The Prime Minister: I did not put forward any ideas on disengagement other than those which were in conformity with the May proposals by the Western Powers and, as the Western Powers agreed to those proposals and still stand by them, those represent the views of the Western Powers and of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the proposals for controlled disarmament put forward by the Western Powers were made conditional on a number of other things happening, is the Prime Minister prepared to put forward on its own a proposal for a zone of controlled disarmament?

The Prime Minister: In the Moscow communiqué, where this really arose, the idea of the possibility of a zone of controlled disarmament in Europe was linked with the settlement of the political problems.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case that in the Moscow communiqué it was stated that both sides would consider and study this proposal on its own? Will the Prime Minister say whether he at any rate thinks that there is a great deal to be said for advancing this proposal on its own without any other conditions? Is there any possible objection to the establishment of such a zone?

The Prime Minister: What the Moscow communiqué said was that
After considered study negotiations could lay the foundations of a suitable system of European security.
That was the first part of that paragraph. That further study was given, and, indeed, in May the Western Powers' proposals were put forward but now, in future discussions, those proposals can be elaborated, either by themselves or in connection with other proposals, but they stand on the May proposals.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in all these negotiations over the coming months he

will bear in mind that the Labour Party's proposals for Central Europe as for Africa were massively repudiated in the General Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — OMAN CAMPAIGN (AWARD)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister what general service medal it is proposed to award to troops who were engaged in recent operations in the territories of the Sultan of Oman and when.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot yet add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) on 18th November.

Mr. Kershaw: When coming to his decision in due course, will my right hon. Friend have regard not only to the purely military considerations of the matter but bear in mind that this was an arduous as well as an expert campaign, that a number of casualties were suffered, and that a number of awards for gallantry were made? Will he bear in mind that the earlier the decision the more welcome it will be to the troops who took part?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am well aware of that, and I am sure we all share admiration of the work of the troops both in this particular operation and generally throughout the Peninsula.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME SECRETARY (STATEMENT)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the imposition of sanctions against the Republic of Ireland represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the House yesterday.

Mr. Driberg: That is rather a pity—because is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary's original folly in answering a hypothetical question at all, followed by his equivocations yesterday, have left this matter extremely obscure, and have done a great deal of


harm already to Anglo-Irish relations? Is he further aware that this merely plays into the hands of those few people in Ireland who are engaged in violence?

The Prime Minister: I think the Home Secretary did pretty well yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but I will take warning, since the hon. Gentleman gives warning, how dangerous it is to answer supplementary questions or any hypothetical question without full documentation, and I will try to see whether there is any with some connection with that.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman is, as usual, dodging. This is not a hypothetical question, nor did my right hon. Friend ask him a hypothetical question.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ulster position on this is very simple, that we have no wish whatever to damage the Irish Republic or to injure any of its trade in any way, but we do ask that, at a time when it is seeking help in economic difficulties, it should, as a quid pro quo, see that it stops its territory being used for hostile actions against us and as a refuge for criminals after they have run away?

Mr. Driberg: So the hon. Member means sanctions?

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving time after the Recess for a debate on this subject, as it appears that the promise in Ulster has suddenly become more exciting than it has been up to date?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that Question No. 126 stands in my name on the Order Paper. I originally tabled this Question for answer by the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend courteously replied to me in a letter to say that it would be answered shortly by the Minister of Defence. But as you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, I ask in the Question for the information to be given before the Recess. Will you permit anyone on the Front Bench who might be

responsible for answering for the Ministry of Defence to answer this Question now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet knows my practice in the matter. I do not do such things unless I have received a request from the Minister to do so. Such a request I have not received.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on an important point of procedure? Under the Emergency Regulations now operating in Nyasaland, and, in particular, Regulation 35, African witnesses before the Monckton Commission who say anything that is likely to undermine public confidence in the Government of Nyasaland or the Government of the Federation are liable to imprisonment. We have had evidence in answer to a Question earlier today that three men have already been imprisoned under that Regulation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), and myself, tabled Questions to the Prime Minister asking what protection would be given to witnesses before the Monckton Commission, to protect them from imprisonment if they give their honest opinion on the situation in the Federation. The right hon. Gentleman informed us that he had transferred the Questions to the Commonwealth Relations Office. We therefore consulted the Table and drafted the Questions in such a way as to make it clear that we were concerned with the personal safety of African witnesses in Nyasaland and in the two Protectorates of the Federation.
We were then informed, again to our astonishment, that the Questions had been transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office. I suggest that two very important points arise from this. The first question is what kind of jurisdiction the Federal Government are operating over a Commission which is appointed by this House and what kind of final say the Federal Government have. Otherwise, why is the Commonwealth Relations Office considered to be answerable for the behaviour of African witnesses in British Protectorates?
That is the first question and I suggest a very important constitutional one, because by transferring these Questions to the Commonwealth Relations Office


the Government have the very nice result that they are able to avoid answering Questions this morning before the Recess whilst the flatter is fresh in the public mind, Question No. 20 having become Question No. 90 and my hon. and learned Friend's Question become No. 89.
The second question is: what possible jurisdiction can the Commonwealth Relations Office have over the operation of emergency regulations in Nyasaland? In view of the entirely arbitrary way in which the Prime Minister transfers Questions to avoid his responsibilities, ought not this whole matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, so that some control is exercised by the House over the way Ministers transfer Questions and, therefore, deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of raising urgent matters at the most appropriate time?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard the hon. Lady's point of order. I have great difficulty in helping her at all myself because, as she and the House would know, the question of transfer is nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair, nor is the underlying question, relating to what might be or what might not be the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Relations Office in this matter.
As to the suggestion of what should or should not be referred to the Committee on Procedure, that would appear to be a matter for the Leader of the House in this context, but certainly not for the Chair.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order. The two Questions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred now appear as Nos. 89 and 90 on the Order Paper. As my hon. Friend has said, they were originally put in a somewhat different form to the Prime Minister. The two Questions were put to the Prime Minister generally with reference to the position arid the protection of all witnesses before the Monckton Commission. Thereafter, those Questions were redrafted by my hon. Friend and myself to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Questions are now framed with reference simply to Nyasaland and the Northern Territory, which are the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary.
The question I wish to put is whether there is a completely unfettered discretion in the Government to transfer Questions from one Department to another, even when the Questions may be quite clearly designed to fall within the province of the first Department.

Mr. Speaker: As far as the Chair is concerned, that ability to transfer is wholly unfettered. The Chair plays no part in the matter. The House no doubt would have its remedy in another way should something go wrong in that field, but it would not be a matter for interference by the Chair.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could give consideration to this problem during the Recess, because the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is extremely important. The Questions have actually been transferred to a Ministry which has no responsibility for the matter in question. It is clear that the Commonwealth Relations Office has no responsibility for British Protectorates and that the Questions were designed to refer to British Protectorates.
It is surely a very grave abuse of the practice of the House when a Question is transferred to a Ministry which is not responsible for the matter, with the result that we cannot raise it, whereas if it had been transferred to the Ministry which has responsibility it would have been reached at Question Time. I submit that this is a very grave abuse of the normal practice which we all expect in the House and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should give attention to this matter and give us your advice on it after consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly look into this particular case, because I really have not considered it or had the opportunity to consider it at all. But I conceive this to be the position—that the transferee Minister, if I may use the phrase, would not have the Question put down to him on the Order Paper at all unless his Ministry was, in fact, accepting responsibility. The Ministry might be doing so rightly in law or wrongly in law, but the Question would not get on the Order Paper if it did not do so. I will look at this to instruct myself, but I adhere to the position that the transfer is not


the responsibility of the Chair, because the Chair cannot be made responsible for deciding whether or not a transfer is appropriate.

Dr. Johnson: On a point of order. Is the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) aware that her own five-minute speech on a point of order and, prior to that, another question which was entirely out of order for another two or three minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—prevented my asking—

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Mr. Gordon Walker rose—

Dr. Johnson: Excuse me, but I am very firmly on a point of order, because I wanted to point out that these two things prevented my asking Question No. 60 on a point of public interest to which I have been awaiting an Answer for about five weeks. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would request certain hon. Members opposite to remember that other hon. Members have rights in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the rights and interests of other hon. Members. In my experience, all Questions which are not reached on any day are questions of great public importance.

Mr. Callaghan: Instead of addressing your admonition, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. Friend, would you not point out to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) that the point of order was raised at the end of Questions and. therefore, he was not estopped by anything that my hon. Friend said?

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to descend into any discussion as to the consequences.

Mr. Rankin: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of hon. Members, to guide me in this matter. It is our right to put Questions, and over a long period Questions have been put, on this matter of the Pegasus aircraft contract. I was assured last week by the Minister of Aviation that the matter would be decided soon and that

we would hear the decision in reply to Questions which we put in this House.
Yesterday, it was announced in the Press that a decision had been reached and most of us expected that an announcement would be made in the House today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) points out, we were informed that we would hear a decision in the House on this matter. Surely it is a deception on the House, and almost an insult to hon. Members, that, while we are promised an Answer in the Chamber to Questions which have been put to the Minister responsible, a Press announcement is made before the House rises and the Government slip away without facing up to the consequences of the decision about which we were informed in the Press yesterday. Are we not to have a statement from the Government?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that hon. Members will be careful not to raise matters which are not points of order under that guise, because we are consuming the time available to hon. Members for business later in the day.

Mr. Driberg: Further to the original point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). You, Mr. Speaker, were good enough to say that one point which she raised was a matter for the Leader of the House. I wonder whether we can ask the Leader of the House to look into it and perhaps to make a statement, if not now, immediately after the Recess? Secondly, when you, Mr. Speaker, advise us that you have no responsibility at all for transfers, which, of course, we accept, it is the case, is it not, that, in practice, the Table acts, as it were, as the agent of the Chair? Presumably, the Table has discussions or consultations with the various Departments when a transfer takes place. If a transfer seems, prima facie, to be quite wrong or evasive, has the Table any rights in the matter at all? Can the Table say to the Department. "Look here, that's a bit steep"?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to both parts of the hon. Member's question is, "No". The Table does not have consultations with the Department consulted.

Mr. Swingler: This is a very important point—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I was quite prepared to intervene when you, Mr. Speaker, mentioned the Leader of the House, and I am ready to take up the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that this matter should be looked at. I do not quite accept her reference to the Select Committee on Procedure. I am not sure whether there is such a Committee. We had a Select Committee. What happens usually in this difficult matter of Parliamentary Questions, their transfer and the time that they are reached, is this. There must be a degree of consultation with the Table and also a degree of responsibility accepted by the Administration, because it is due to Ministers that Questions are primarily transferred.
While quite acknowledging the responsibility of the Government and of the Leader of the House in this matter, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we might make contact with the Table and perhaps, by a series of discussions, reach a little more satisfaction. If I could pursue the matter on those lines, we might he a little more happier.

Mr. Callaghan: We are obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. May I ask him whether, in looking into this matter, he will endeavour to reach an accommodation with the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations that all Questions on the subject of the Monckton Commission shall not be answered by simply one of those two Ministers, but shall be divided between them according to the nature of the Question? It may well be that they have decided that all ought to go through the Commonwealth Relations Office. If that is so, it would be extremely unsatisfactory to my hon. Friends, in view of the special relationship which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has with the two Northern Protectorates.

Mr. Butler: I would not accept, prima facie, that there has been a wrong decision about Questions Nos. 89 and 90, although I understand the regret that

they were not reached. However, the point raised by the hon. Member about the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations would have to be discussed by me with these Ministers concerned, and I will certainly do this.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that very helpful reply, may I ask him whether he will consider the point that when a transfer is made the reason should be given to the hon. Member tabling the Question? This would enable an hon. Member perhaps to judge whether a serious constitutional problem is involved, as I suggest there is in this case. Surely it would be intolerable to the House if the Government were acting on the assumption that responsibility for the conduct of the Monckton Commission is a matter for the Commonwealth Relations Office and thus, by inference, for the Federal Government and not for this Parliament.

Mr. Butler: I have undertaken to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend concerned. For the time being, I would rather say no more, except to reaffirm what has been said.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will be careful to adhere strictly to points of order if they so describe them.

Mr. Thorpe: When dealing with this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it should not be referred to the Board of Trade on the basis that the Monckton Commission was launched on a fraudulent prospectus?

SENTENCED PERSONS

Mr. S. Silverman: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the case of the six persons now serving a sentence of two months' imprisonment in default of entering into recognisances to be of good behaviour; and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): As I informed the House yesterday, it is open to these persons to appeal under the


Magistrates Courts (Appeals from Binding-Over Orders) Act, 1956. Despite the fact that an appeal is available for these persons, and the obvious difficulty of making a statement about this case, I remember that hon. Members yesterday raised the question of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
I must tell the House that, on the information at present before me, I am not aware of any special considerations which would justify me in making a recommendation to Her Majesty.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that to keep these people in prison, especially at such a time, is repugnant to the whole spirit of a free society? Is it not perfectly clear that no charge was ever brought against these people, that they were not convicted of any offence, that they have committed no offence, that the leaflets which they distributed were perfectly lawful leaflets and that the meeting which they wished to call was a perfectly lawful assembly?
Is it not absolutely intolerable that this ancient mediaeval Statute should be called in aid to prevent free, lawful, law-abiding and responsible citizens from exercising the civil liberties which these terrible weapons presumably are intended to defend?

Mr. Butler: I realise the difficulties, but these persons can secure their release at any time by obeying the order of the court, and they would be perfectly at liberty to do so. Alternatively, they have the right to appeal.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the order of the court was made precisely to prevent them from exercising the perfectly lawful rights which they have and that it is an abuse of the courts and of the process of the courts that such—it is neither a prosecution nor a charge— proceedings should be brought in cases of this kind? Was not the original Statute meant to deal with rogues and vagabonds? Is it really suggested that these people are rogues and vagabonds?

Mr. Butler: I am informed—and I cannot interfere with the administration of justice—that the order of the courtequired these six persons to give sureties of£100 for twelve months to be of good

behaviour, to keep the peace, and, in particular, not to take part in or to encourage any breach of the peace, with particular regard to establishments dealing with nuclear warfare.

Mr. Ede: Is not the purpose of the Statute under which these persons have been prosecuted the preservation of the Queen's peace? I understand from what was said yesterday that the prosecution originated with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for the preservation of the Queen's peace. Was there any consultation between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Home Office before the prosecution was launched?

Mr. Butler: I have no information which will enable me to answer that question.

Mr. Doughty: Is it not the case that these people were convicted—

Mr. Silverman: No, they were not.

Mr. Doughty: —of committing acts encouraging violence—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."—and of publishing documents to encourage acts of violence—

Mr. Silverman: No, they were not.

Mr. Doughty: —and encouraging others to acts of violence, and there was evidence that they intended to continue those acts, and that the very usual and proper process was followed of binding them over to find sureties to keep the peace in the future?

Mr. Lewis: When I first raised this question yesterday I went to great lengths to explain to the House that the leaflet which has been circulated—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may only ask a question. I cannot allow him to make a speech.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the leaflet particularly emphasised that there should be no violence, that these people should not cause any disturbance and that if the police tried in any way to assert the right of law they themselves should succumb to the law? If these people had been found guilty of any offence, surely the only offence was to say that those who were going to demonstrate should take no action in direct


conflict with the law? Therefore, why should not the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, exercise his prerogative to allow these people to be released at least for the Christmas period, or at least until we meet again in January, so that we can debate the matter?

Mr. Butler: I cannot intervene or upset the order of the court. I have studied very carefully whether the Royal Prerogative would apply in these cases. It would apply only if there were very special circumstances. I have not at present before me any special circumstances which would, in my opinion, justify me in making a recommendation to Her Majesty. Subject to not receiving any further information or special circumstances, I could not alter my present decision.

Mr. Burden: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether it is not a fact that, in the past, in similar circumstances these people have forced entry into military establishments and had to be removed by the police by force, in very unfortunate circumstances? Secondly, is it not a fact that the leaflet which has resulted in their coming before the courts and being asked to give recognisances is worded in precisely the same way and would be liable to create circumstances similar to those which have appertained in the past?

Mr. Butler: I must leave the decision and the judgment to the courts. I am aware of previous incidents. In this case, I must go by what the court decided.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to follow up the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows, and can tell us, whether or not he had consultations with the Director of Public Prosecutions? Surely he must know the answer to that question?

Mr. Butler: As far as I am aware, there was no such consultation. I did not give any very definite answer, because I myself had had no contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I received notice of this only late last night. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the answer is in the negative.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that I have the interests of other hon. Members today much in mind. Clearly, we cannot debate this matter by question and answer.

Mr. Silverman: I realise, of course, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot ask leave under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House, because the rest of today's proceedings are, in any case, debates on the Adjournment, and, therefore, that procedure would scarcely be appropriate. However, having regard to the fact that the rest of the day is devoted to debates on the Adjournment, and that by a custom of the House the selection of subjects for the debates on the Adjournment rests with you, may I suggest to you that there is enough interest, enough importance and enough urgency in this matter to justify a short debate on it this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: I make a selection in advance to help the House. Now there will be extremely little time to debate the subjects which have already been selected. In those circumstances, I can give no warranty at all that there will be time for any addition to the list of matters already notified for discussion on the Adjournment.

Mr. Oram: If an hon. Member who has a subject for discussion on the Adjournment which you have chosen, Mr. Speaker, is willing to withdraw, would that time be available for a short debate on this subject?

Mr. Speaker: It would depend, I suppose, on some consideration of the position of the Minister concerned in the matter, whether the circumstances were such as to allow him sufficient time to equip himself with knowledge so that he could reply. Should those circumstances arise, I would prefer to consider them when they did and not on a hypothetical basis now.

Mr. Silverman: Further to what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, about taking into consideration, as is only right, the position of the Minister concerned, may I remind you that only a few moments ago the Home Secretary said that, as at present advised, with his present state of information, he saw no special reasons for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative? I suggest that it might very well


be that if we had a little more time than is available to us in supplementary questions arising out of a Private Notice Question we might be able to provide the right hon. Gentleman with such reasons.
While I appreciate that there is some unfairness involved in respect of hon. Members who have subjects for discussion which have already been selected, it is true that this matter was raised so late in the week that it would not have been possible to put it to you earlier when the selection of subjects was made. I submit that this is the kind of emergency when some elasticity in the arrangements for the last day of the Session might be appropriate, and I again suggest to you that it might be advisable, that the House might prefer, to have a short debate, lasting perhaps half an hour, on this very important matter.

Mr. Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might help here. It is unusual, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will know, for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to be invoked during the period when an appeal lies. It is unusual because if we were to do that it would make considerable difficulties in other cases. The Royal Prerogative has occasionally been exercised during the period of appeal. The period of appeal lies for 14 days in this case, and the six persons involved have the opportunity of appeal and the opportunity of obeying the order of the court.
In the circumstances, I do not believe that I can add very much, but I am available, subject to the limitations that I have mentioned—namely, the period of appeal—to listen to any special circumstances, and I am certainly available to any hon. Member who wishes to put special circumstances before me. However. I very much doubt whether I can

add very much more today, at this Dispatch Box, for the reasons which I have given.

BILLS PRESENTED

LEGAL AID

Bill to relax the financial conditions for legal aid under Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, and under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, by altering the limits on disposable income and disposable capital, and the maximum amount of the contribution to the legal aid fund, to make further provision for the remuneration of counsel and solicitors in connection with such legal aid or with applications for it, and to explain references in those Acts to payment and the like, presented by the Attorney General; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. John Maclay, the Lord Advocate, Sir Edward Boyle, the Solicitor General, and the Solicitor General for Scotland; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th January and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND)

Bill to repeal the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1913, and the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Acts, 1913 and 1940; to make fresh provision with respect to the reception, care and treatment of persons suffering, or appearing to be suffering, from mental disorder, and with respect to their property and affairs; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. John Maclay; supported by the Solicitor General for Scotland and Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th January and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

PIG INDUSTRY

12.29 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I am in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has raised the question of the personal liberty of certain subjects, and the personal liberty of our fellow-citizens transcends in importance all other subjects that could come before the House today. In those circumstances, if you thought it fit, and the House agreed, I should be prepared to relinquish the subject which I was proposing to discuss and allow a discussion on the question of the liberty of the six people who are now in prison. However, if we are to get no reply from the Home Secretary, or if he is to say that under the circumstances there is nothing he can do, and if you so advise, I will continue with the subject which you kindly put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: For obvious reasons, I shall not play any part in this process. It would not be right. I am a servant of the House in the matter. At present, I have selected the hon. Member's Adjournment debate, and there it stands. The difficulty about making last-minute changes of subject is that, of course, one does not know what other hon. Members are interested, or what hon. Members are interested in some other topic, having been notified by the notification of Christmas Adjournment debates. As the matter stands, I say nothing at all to persuade the hon. Member.

Sir L. Plummer: I am aware that there are several hon. Members, on this and on the other side of the House, who are interested in the subject which I wish to discuss. In those circumstances, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will forgive me if I go on to discuss the subject which you have chosen for this debate, Mr. Speaker.
I have no hesitation in returning to the subject of the future prospects of the pig industry and asking the Minister of Agriculture to answer some questions which are germane to the problem and which the whole industry is asking and to which hitherto he has not given any satisfactory reply.
It will be within the recollection of the House that I first raised the subject of the present position of the industry in a speech in the debate on the Gracious Speech at the end of October. It was raised again by the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) in an Adjournment debate on 4th November and it was referred to again by the Minister on 7th December when he announced that it was his plan to do nothing until the coming February Price Review.
It is not right—and I hope that this debate will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to put it right—for him to go away with the situation as unresolved and as chaotic as it is at present. However, I must say that I am not under any illusions that anything which the Minister of Agriculture will say will do anything to allay the alarm, despondency and concern of the pig industry. All he has said, after all the pressure which has been put upon him by my hon. and right hon. Friends and by hon. Gentlemen opposite, has been that he will do nothing until the Price Review. In the meantime, he has given some advice to both curers and producers, advice which has resulted in the situation getting even worse than it was.
He has had a very unfavourable Press. The Farmers' Weekly, which is normally almost hysterical in its sycophancy towards the Government, dealt with the right. hon. Gentleman's proposal this week in a leading article headed "Unhelpful." That is very severe criticism from the Farmers' Weekly. It is the dirtiest word which that journal can use about the Government, and it shows the extent of the slump in the popularity of the Minister more clearly than anything else.
I have also to refer to the headline on one of the news pages which describes how the Smithfield Show heard the news that£25,000 worth of Canadian pork was to be imported. These are the cruel words of the Farmers' Weekly:
'Sold' say pig farmers—but Canadian visitors are jubilant.
After all the efforts made from this and the other side of the House we have been told by the Minister that nothing is to be done and that 25,000 tons of pig meat is to come to the country, chiefly from Canada, in an attempt to ease the pressure on the bacon factories


and that the whole question of pig meat imports will have to be further reviewed later next year.
That is a rather significant phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used in his statement of 7th December and with which nobody dealt at the time. What did he mean by "later next year"? Did he mean the autumn of next year? There is already some dubiety about whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make any significant and material alterations in the present pig system at the February Price Review. By the word "later," did he mean to cover consideration over the whole of 1960 instead of in February or March?
His advice that producers should be prepared to accept a little less and curers to give a little more ignores two prime factors in the market today. One is that because the producers are already accepting a great deal less that there is a marked diminution in the country's pig population. I hate to intrude my own personal experience in a matter like this, but this week I brought up the records of three batches of bacon pigs which I sent to market on 30th October, 13th November and 19th November. The situation has worsened since then.
I found that on 30th October I sent in six pigs, all of them AA and all of them paid for at the top rate, one of them 850 mm. in length. The average price I received was£16 8s. 7d. In the next batch which I sent I received an average of£15 6s. 3d. and again they were all AA, the highest grade of pigs. The rate for the last batch was£17 4s. 3d. and one of the pigs was 860 mm. in length.
That is the experience of a pig farmer who has done exactly what the Government have asked and who has bred long pigs for the Wiltshire market and who has gone in for the sort of pig which the Government wanted. The return that I got made it clear that, like other specialist producers, we are losing much money on each specialist pig which we send to market. We have also to accept the curers' statements that over the last few months they have had to pay more than£750,000 above the rate to maintain the throughput in the factories.
There is no question but that we have this anomalous position, that bacon

curers and specialist pig producers are running at a loss and that, on the whole, the housewife is not benefiting to the extent that she should. The situation in the bacon factories is very serious, and I cannot exaggerate it. This morning I received a letter from the secretary of the British Bacon Curers' Federation saying that for the first time in his memory one factory in the five of the group with which he is concerned will not be making any bacon this week or next because its allocation of pigs is so small that it can only just meet the pork trade. He asked me also to draw attention to the editorial written by the Farmers' Weekly, which I have already done.
I have heard a rumour, and it is no more than a rumour, that a very important bacon factory in the south-east of England, not all that far from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, is to close. It is perfectly true that there are only some 4,000 or 5,000 people engaged in the curing industry and that, compared with the total working population, the number is not all that important. But what is important is that there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in the productive side of the industry. To those people the Minister has no surety of any kind to offer.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has been embarrassed by criticism. I read in one newspaper, which apparently had access to the meetings which he attended, that he turned crimson with embarrassment. It now seems to me that we have a new, agricultural Pink Zone, but, unlike the other Pink Zone, it seems to be almost permanently with us.
I see that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have formed a sub-committee to try to sort out the mess which the right hon. Gentleman himself has created. This is government by delegation. Is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to be vested in a sub-committee of Members of his party? Is this the way that he is going to run it? I warn him that he is following in the footsteps of previous Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, who found that the Ministry of Agriculture had been the grave of their political hopes. The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but quite a number of notable figures who preceded him in his office are now practically unheard of.


The right lion. Gentleman is giving every indication now that he is returning to the old laissez faire free trade policy in regard to bacon, a policy which brought the industry absolutely to disaster after the First World War.
I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a phrase which was used by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon (Mr. Turton), who said:
Let us not have the wool pulled over our eyes on this matter."—
he was referring to the Danish Agreement—
If the Chancellor says that we must get this Agreement to help the Danes, or to help the Swedes, that we are to take more of their pigs, more of their timber, or more of their pulp, it must mean fewer pigs, less timber and pulp produced in this country. We must get away from the delusion about the Price Review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 1099.]
Those are formidable words coming from so notable a Member of the Government benches.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot go away for the Christmas Recess saying absolutely nothing to the farmers, the pig producers and the curers of this country other than that the matter will be dealt with when we come to the Price Review. It is not a question now of waiting three months. I seriously believe that what the Minister has to say this morning will decide whether this industry goes through another period of decline and decay or whether there will be a revival of confidence in it.
I do not want to speak too long because I want to give an opportunity to hon. Members opposite to say quite publicly what, presumably, they said in a private meeting upstairs.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: If they have the courage.

Sir L. Plummer: I am certain that they will have the courage. I am certain that many hon. Members opposite, particularly those on the back benches, are with me in this criticism.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman tc make it clear to the industry whether he wants bacon pigs or not, or has he made up his mind at the Treasury's instigation that we had better hand this business over to the Danes altogether? If that is his policy, I have no doubt that the industry, which has been badly hit,

will be able to reorganise itself somehow. It will have to cut out breeding the specialised breeds of pigs—Large Whites, Landrace and Wessex will have to go. There will have to be much more casual feeding, and the high standards which the specialist bacon producer is observing will have to be surrendered because they will be a luxury. All that we are asking at the moment is that the Minister shall make the position clear and not leave it as obscure as it has been left by the speeches of his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his own.
Are the Government proposing to return to pre-war marketing conditions? What does the Minister think will happen when the 10 per cent. Danish tariff comes off? What will happen then to the British pig producer? Why do we have to wait until March? Why is it not possible for the Minister to say, "I am prepared to alter the guarantee by separating the pig guarantee from the bacon guarantee" or "I will subtract the quality premium out of the general pool subsidy and treat that as a separate payment altogether?
Is the Minister prepared to answer the British Bacon Curers Federation statement that what this country needs is another one million pigs over the next year? It is not a pleasant thought that many of our bacon factories are running at 25 to 30 per cent. of capacity, a capacity that was increased, let us remember, as a result of the exhortations of the Government. The Government said to the bacon industry, "Expand, develop, put in better plant." The curers did this. They believed that they were doing so on the understanding that they would be able to have an economic throughput.
I want to ask the Minister questions raised by the bacon curers themselves. We have now the situation in which from 14th November to 12th December the weekly tonnage of bacon coming into the British factories went up from 3,580 to 3,600, an increase of 20 tons for the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Over the same period the importation of Danish bacon went up by 830 tons. Is the Minister satisfied with that situation? Is he satisfied with the situation that since December, 1958, the figure of 3,000 tons of British pigs going into the bacon factories has now fallen to about 2,400 tons?
While wishing the right hon. Gentleman all the Christmas and seasonal good will that I can, I really cannot let him go away to his farm in Suffolk, where no doubt he will have to barricade himself in over Christmas from his neighbours. without answering those questions. I beg him to realise that this is the last opportunity that he will have of expressing in the House, to the farmers and to curers exactly what his policy is. what he wants, and what he proposes to do for the industry.

12.47 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I very much regret that, owing to circumstances not within the control of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and myself, we have had to cut short the time of the debate, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably have liked to speak. I am anxious to give as full a reply as I can to the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that hon. Members will understand why I have to intervene at this stage.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude about my political and physical welfare and a number of other things, but I can assure him that I take full responsibility for what I have said up to now. I have the advantage of having a great deal of advice, including the advice from quite a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House; and I thought that it was right for a Minister to be prepared to listen to suggestions from his colleagues when those suggestions were designed to be constructive and helpful.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford that there is one thing which, I think, we have in common. I can assure him that I am no less anxious than he to see a stable and efficient British pig industry. But I now part company with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we must be careful not to allow our consideration of this subject to get out of perspective. If one listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully, as I did and, I think, other hon. Members did, one would realise that the remarks which he made, and other remarks made in the House, would imply that the pig

industry is in the doldrums. This is not true. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the British pig industry at present has a strong market for pork and a high level of prices. He knows. just as well as I do, that two-thirds of our pigs normally go for pork and manufacturing processes. At present the proportion is even higher. That is one of the difficulties. The producers who sell for these outlets, which are now accounting for about three-quarters of our total pig production. are not complaining.
Having said that, I hope that the hon. Member will not think that I am unmindful of the present anxieties of the specialist bacon pig producers. He spoke as a specialist bacon pig producer for that class of producer. But the Government have to consider their responsibilities towards our pig industry in the wider context of their responsibilities to both taxpayer and consumer. As hon. Members know, only last year our breeding herd reached a peak level, with a subsidy bill running at over£40 million a year. Steps had to be taken—and there was no opposition to them in the House—to protect the taxpayer. I shall say something about the consumer later.
I do not deny that the decline in our breeding herd has proceeded somewhat further than we should have liked. The quarterly census returns, which are the most reliable figures we have, show that the breeding herd in Great Britain reached its peak in March of last year, when it stood at 743,000. By June of this year it had fallen to 601,000 and the last quarterly census return, for September, showed that it stayed at about the same figure—600,000. From the spot checks which the Ministry has taken it would seem that this level has remained fairly constant since last June. All experience shows that we can expect an increase in the near future.

Sir L. Plummer: The right hon. Gentleman says that all the experience shows this. What does he mean? We have not previously experienced a situation such as this. He said that the decline in the pig population is flattening out. What evidence has he of that?

Mr. Hare: I have given the evidence of the census returns and the spot checks that we have taken. Perhaps the hon. Member has not been farming as long as


I thought, but if he studies the history of pigs he will see that the graph of the breeding herd has gone up and down for very many years. I should have thought that we could benefit from the experience available to us of the past behaviour of the pig.
I have already told the House that it is, in my opinion, most undesirable to chop and change prices between Price Reviews. It would create additional uncertainties within the agricultural industry and would set an undesirable precedent. I would have thought that the undertaking I gave a few months ago, that there would be no reduction in the standard price after the next Review, implied that the Government would like to see a moderate increase in the breeding herd, although—I say this with emphasis—none of us would wish to see an increase to a level which would impose an unreasonable burden on the taxpayer and put us back in the embarrassing position of early 1958.
I can assure the hon. Member that we shall he considering the pig industry at the Annual Review, and I shall consider its future most carefully in the light of the position then disclosed in our consultations with the producers, and of the welter of different opinions and forms of advice that have come to me over the last few months from various sectors of the pig trade. I cannot anticipate the decisions following the Review, but I want to make it clear again that the Government do not feel that separate standard prices for bacon pigs and pork pigs is the answer to present difficulties.
A number of sound economic arguments against separate guarantees have been set out in the Bosanquet Report. But what would the immediate practical difficulties be? The Government would have to fix the separate prices. It is, however, almost impossible to predict the strength of demand for pigs for different purposes. Much depends upon the weather, on consumer preference and on the availability of competing foods, such as Argentine beef.
We must not forget the housewife in all this. We could find ourselves in a position of having too few pigs for pork and too many for bacon, in which case the housewife might be paying a high price for pork while the taxpayer was paying a heavy subsidy on bacon pigs.

Separate standard prices would also have to be kept under constant review, and this would mean continual Government interference in the industry, and a perpetual state of uncertainty among producers and users of pigs.
It is quite clear that the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member chiefly affect the specialist bacon pig producer and curer, and the hon. Member concentrated on the Wiltshire curer, whom he supplies. The instability about which the curers are complaining could be considerably reduced by voluntary longterm contracts with the producers, either individually or collectively—for the F.M.C. comes into this. The curers have stated that they intend to re-examine this suggestion. But I would repeat that those who are anxious to have an assurance about stability, whether they are curers or specialist bacon pig producers, should be prepared to pay a premium. That is why I said that there should he some give and take on both sides.
The separate stabilisation arrangements introduced this year put a floor on bacon pig prices and should have facilitated the making of long-term contracts. In this connection, it is interesting to see how the average return on pigs sold by grade and dead weight to bacon factories has compared with the standard price. In 1955–56, it was ld. higher than the standard price; in 1956–57, it was 81d. higher; in 1957–58 it was 9id. lower; and in 1958–59, it was 31d. higher. From 30th March this year to 29th November bacon pigs have been Id. higher than the standard price, although it is quite true that in the last two months the pendulum has been swinging in the opposite direction.
In three of the last four full years, then, the average returns on pigs sold by grade and dead weight to bacon factories has exceeded the standard price. This would suggest that the producers of pigs could make long-term contracts at an average price very near the standard price. I repeat that I am very ready to do what I can to help, but I must have evidence of a real interest in the possibilities of long-term contracts.
On their own, long-term contracts quite clearly will not solve the immediate problems arising from the shortage of pigs for curing. Although I do


not share the forebodings of the hon. Member—and I think that what he has said will add to the alarm—I should not expect to see an increase in the number of slaughterings much before the end of 1960. For this reason, as well as in the light of our international obligations, the Government have agreed to an importation of 25,000 tons of pork from North America. Most of this will be coming from Canada, which is a traditional supplier of pig meat for the United Kingdom market. To all intents and purposes, Canada was our only overseas supplier during the war. Supplies have had to be prohibited in recent years, because we did not have the dollars to pay for them, but that position no longer obtains and the Government felt that some relaxation was right.
At the same time, we decided that our increase in pig meat supplies must be taken into account in trade negotiations with the Poles. The Poles have been informed that the Government cannot renew the bacon quota at the current figure, and they have been offered a quota at a reduced rate for the first six months of 1960. The arrangements for the second half of the year have been left for discussions later in the light of the situation then obtaining.
Imports of pork from Canada will help the immediate situation. If this pork is suitable for curing into bacon it will help our curers directly; and in so far as it is absorbed by the pork and manufacturing trades it should help them indirectly, by releasing more of our own pigs for curing. The producers, of course, have the security offered under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. I hope that they will concentrate on the job in hand and not be put off by a good deal of the scare talk that we have heard in the last few months. We shall be looking at the state of the pig industry at the Annual Review. Our talks start in less than two months' time, and I can assure the House that the Government's decisions following on that Review will reflect our concern to see a stable and efficient pig industry in the United Kingdom. I have every confidence in the future of the British pig industry, and see no reason why our producers should not plan ahead and produce the pigs which the trade is clearly demanding.

Sir L. Plummer: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was less than I expected. He accused me of causing alarm in the trade by speeches such as I have just made. Does he not understand the position? Has he no conception of the fact that there is great despondency in the trade? Does he not read market reports? This despondency occurred before I said a word about it in the House. It is a bit much for the right hon. Gentleman to blame hon. Members on this side of the House for a situation which he himself has created. We have done no more than ventilate that situation.
In other respects, I received the reply that I expected. The Minister will do nothing. For the next three months the industry has to go on like this.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member was rising to correct something before the Minister sat down. He can only make a second speech with leave.

Sir L. Plummer: I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker. I go away for Christmas with a heavy heart.

UNDER-DEVELOPED TERRITORIES (AID)

1.1 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: In the time available it is possible to touch only very lightly on this vital subject, a subject which is probably amongst the three or four questions which confront world statesmen today. Nevertheless, I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the matter.
The free world is grateful for the vast help which has been provided in the past by the United States of America, by Marshall Aid and by other means, but the time has come when it is both unrealistic and unfair to expect the United States of America alone to carry the main weight of this burden. Other countries with prosperous economies must make greater contributions than they are making at present.
There are three reasons why we should undertake this task. The first is moral, the second is economic, and the third is political.
On the moral side, it is very similar in the international field to the situation which has developed here, where by


virtue of greater ease of communications we are able to appreciate one another's problems more easily than was possible before the war. The manner in which many of our people, and people from other countries, have travelled abroad and seen for themselves some of the appalling conditions in which probably half the world lives has struck at the conscience of Christian thinking people and demands that something be done to alleviate the troubles in which many people find themselves.
Economically—and this is a very realistic approach—we must recognise that expanding world trade means better times and better conditions for all of us who are taking part in activities of this sort.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: We have never had it so good, some say.

Mr. Cooper: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. He is probably going to have the best spending Christmas that he has ever had.
On the political side, whilst we must recognise that in all-in aid there is a considerable political element, it would be dangerous to overstress that and create the impression that it is the end-all and be-all of the aid which we seek to provide. Marshall Aid was a great attempt to restore the economies of those countries which had their economies virtually destroyed because of the Second World War. It was a first-aid approach to the problem and largely succeeded in its objective, but what we are seeking to do today is to ensure a long-term, continuous effort to help countries whose resources and general standard of living do not permit them to make the advance in their general living standards which we think is necessary.
Aid follows three main patterns, loans and grants, capital goods and technical assistance. Loans and grants—and particularly loans—are largely on what one might call a banker's basis. They are given largely because of an appreciation of the ability of a country to repay over a long period of time.
It is interesting to read document No. R.4094 issued by the Central Office of Information. The document states that some countries have advanced at a rate faster than their resources could allow with the result that there has had to be a reappraisal of their programmes and

a cutting back of their imports. We ought to be able to find ways and means of ensuring that once expansion is started it can continue.
Grants are often inadequate. I know that that is an easy thing to say, and that it depends entirely on the ability of countries to give the money or the goods and not to lend them.
Technical assistance is one of the greatest contributions that this country can make. Our record in the past—to use a phrase which is not always popular —in Empire building is outstanding. We have much to contribute in knowledge, "know-how" and technical assistance, perhaps even more than we have in finance.
Lastly in this sector comes private in vestment. We tend to overlook that. Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of the volume of private investment which has taken place in these countries over the past few years?
Private investment has this limiting factor about it. It is not the duty of private companies or private individuals to think beyond what one might call the commercial considerations. In putting money into a country it is their hope that industry will develop and pay dividends so that money can be brought back to the United Kingdom, but there are considerations when commercial reasons are not the answer, and in those circumstances the private sector will not be prepared to invest money as we would like to see it done.
To revert to the technical assistance side, I should like to put under this heading the facilities that we can provide in agriculture. Within the areas which we are discussing we find literally half the world's population. The standard of living of these people is far below what one might call even the subsistence level. It is also unfortunate that in these areas we have the fastest breeding sector of the world. Like the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", they have to run very fast to keep in the same place. Notwithstanding that agricultural production has increased tremendously in these areas during the past few years. the growth of population means that living standards generally are roughly the same as they were before.
What must we do to solve this vital problem? An increase in agricultural


productivity is one of the prime needs. We must not think only in terms of money. We must consider also whether it might be good for the countries participating in, for instance, the Colombo Plan, if tractors, farm implements, fertilisers and so forth were provided outright, because money can, perhaps, easily become lost in a Government Department of one sort or another in these various countries.
Even if all these things are provided, it is still necessary that people should have the skills required to use them adequately. The problem which must exercise us perhaps more than any other is the means whereby the right technical assistance and technical colleges can be provided, because it is this kind of assistance which can, perhaps, in due course, make a greater impact than anything else.
I suggest to the House that there are probably far too many organisations which are present exist to help. There is the Colombo Plan, probably the most successful in this respect. There is the British Council which, although it is openly derided by certain organs of the British Press, makes a contribution. There is the World Bank. There is the International Development Association, about which I hope my hon. Friend will tell us a little more today. There is the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Research and Development. There are probably others, particularly in health, which contribute in one way or another. Where there are so many organisations dealing with what is, by and large, the same problem, a great deal of money can well be lost in administration. Co-ordination of effort is something to which Governments must address their minds.
I have seen it suggested that coordination might best take place under the aegis of the United Nations, but I beg leave to doubt whether that is the right medium. Unfortunately, the United Nations is a political sounding board, and many plans might become lost in political controversy and their value disappear. Furthermore, we all know from bitter experience the delays which can take place within that body. I do not think that the weight of evidence is such that we can have any real confidence that it could operate effectively here. The most satisfactory

approach to the problem probably lies along the lines of the Colombo Plan, in other words, on a regional basis. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us whether any discussions of that kind are taking place.
What can we do in this country to help? Can more funds be made available by us or by other countries? There is a feeling sometimes expressed that, because our shops may be full and we are enjoying a level of prosperity such as we have never had before, we can have substantial reductions of taxation and we can give away largesse to all parts of the world. It is not really as simple as that. It must be recognised in this country and in other countries participating in schemes of this sort that, in the final analysis, our ability to make funds available for other countries depends entirely on our balance of payments situation. If we can earn a substantial balance of payments surplus year by year, our ability to provide funds for under-developed territories and to provide funds for reducing taxation in our own country will be increased. If the situation be reversed, all the good intentions in the world will go for naught.
We are today in a very favourable position. I thing that we could possibly do more than we are doing. Without wishing to make a precise proposal this afternoon, I should like to hear from my hon. Friend what proposals the Government have about the International Development Association, the newest in a long line of institutions to improve standards in various parts of the world.
At this season, when good will permeates the hearts of all men throughout the Christian world, it would be a good time for us to give serious thought to the problem of seeing how we can make a better contribution than we are at present making for the least fortunate people of the world.

1.16 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I wish to stress two points which have been brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), first, the availability of capital, and, secondly, the provision of technical assistance. My hon. Friend was quite right in saying, at the conclusion of his speech, that it is quite impossible for


us to provide adequate help for underdeveloped countries if we do not have a healthy balance of payments. We can invest only out of surpluses we earn and make available for investment from the proceeds of our trading and from savings.
There is today a general world shortage of capital—a great deal to be done and far too little capital with which to do it. For this country there are two possible sources of capital resources for development in the under-developed countries, one, the public purse and the other, private investment. If we are to help under-developed countries by Government loans or grants, we must do it either out of taxation or out of reduced Government expenditure. This means that the people of our country must be prepared to accept a rather lower standard of life than they are, apparently, at present prepared to accept, so that we may have a surplus available for investment overseas. If we do it out of private investment, it must be done out of savings and the result of our trading.
The taxation system under which we now work is clearly penal in its effect. Indeed, there are those who believe that the taxation system which we now enjoy—if that be the right word—tends to destroy real capital. Certainly, it makes it much more difficult for private enterprise to accumulate funds to invest abroad in the way it might wish. It is true that there is a great deal of investment now going on in other countries, but it tends to be directed, of course. very largely to those countries which are or which are likely to be economically viable and likely to give a return either in the short term or the long term to the private investor. Therefore, it does not meet altogether the point which has been brought up by my hon. Friend. Sometimes, one has to invest in countries from which one cannot expect a return or, if a return will come, not for a very long time. There should, therefore, be a combination of public and private investment.
I find it difficult to see how we shall have enough capital on our own to make very much of a contribution towards the needs of the world. We can operate only in conjunction with other countries through the organisations which now exist or which we are con-

sidering setting up. We can certainly make a contribution but not, I suggest, a very large capital contribution at present. Where we can possibly make a contribution, I think, is in the provision of technical assistance.
It is not very much use providing for development in other countries unless, at the same time, one provides the technicians and, possibly, the teachers to train people to run their affairs eventually and provide all the administrative resources necessary to build up industrial enterprises or whatever form of development is required in the countries where we are considering investing. We in this country are now suffering to some extent from a shortage of technical and skilled labour. Possibly the Government could do a little to encourage the greater training of technicians for service overseas, particularly those sent overseas on Government service.
One of the ways of developing the ability of the inhabitants of other countries to look after themselves is that of setting up schools, technical colleges and universities, but the problem those countries are up against is the provision of sufficiently qualified teachers. We could get enough teachers to go from this country, short as we are, if the conditions of service were right. One of the problems is that service overseas does not rank for pension for them as teachers in this country. The Government could help by making it possible for teachers serving overseas to rank that service for pension when eventually they come back to teach here.
It is a difficult problem. It is easy to say that we must provide aid to these countries whose standard of living is grossly below ours, that it is wrong morally and politically to allow those conditions to continue to exist and that we as a very prosperous country ought to play a very full part in putting that position right. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with that outlook, but, in practice, it is very difficult to put it into effect. It can be put into effect only if the Government are prepared to help private enterprise to a greater extent than it has been helped up to now to invest in countries where the risk of loss is considerable and to guarantee to some extent against indefinite loss.


Secondly, if it is done by public money the Government can help by loans or grants, but that can only be done out of the increased prosperity of this country, given a big enough surplus, through greater taxation, or by the nation as a whole being prepared to accept a lower standard of living to make available more money for under-developed countries which probably would be unprofitable and unproductive from our point of view, but designed to raise the standard of living of those people.
Historically, it has never been found very valuable to put money into countries which are not likely to be economically viable. It may be that aid poured into such a country is like putting water into a sieve, that it is completely lost, with damage not only to the donor but to the recipient. I do not think that we could afford that kind of aid and we can do our part only through the existing world agencies in giving assistance to these countries. We as a nation should concentrate primarily on those countries where investment of capital is likely in the, end to produce a return and we should concentrate on building up resources of technical assistance to help them with their plans.

1.24 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) on having initiated this debate and on the excellent speech he made. It is true that there is more interest taken in Britain and other Western countries in this vital question of helping the less developed territories than there has ever been before.
On a personal note, I wish to say how pleased I am that through the accident of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary being in Paris I find myself returning to the Despatch Box to reply on this subject after an interval of three years. Certainly, no experience I ever had has made a bigger impact on me than that of being a member of the delegation to the Colombo Plan Conference in 1955. There is nothing to make one realise more that we are not only living in a nation in which everybody counts, but also living in a world in which all nations and all continents count.
There is nothing like joining in a conference in Asia or Africa to make one realise the error of looking at politics from too exclusively a Western or European point of view. It is, happily, true that today all parties are united in their interest in this vital question. The Queen's Speech, on 27th October, stated:
The improvement of conditions of life in the less developed countries of the world will remain an urgent concern of my Government. They will promote economic co-operation between the nations and support plans for financial and technical assistance.
I thought that it might be helpful, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South if, first, I say a word on the subject of the total of United Kingdom aid. A great many figures have been quoted by Ministers in recent years, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted the latest figures in his Mansion House speech. I have been at pains to try to obtain from my advisers still later figures before coming to the House this morning.
Expenditure from United Kingdom public funds on economic and technical assistance to overseas countries and territories, according to the latest estimate. rose from roughly —75 million in the financial year 1957–58 to about£100 million in the financial year 1958–59. That was an increase of one-third. A further sharp rise is taking place this year.
It seems quite likely, from all the indications, that the out-turn of this expenditure for the current year may be round about£150 million, in which case expenditure from public funds will have doubled over two years, that is, comparing 1959–60 with 1957–58. The total for the current year is still subject to variation depending in part on the rate at which some of the recipients take advantage of the loan facilities which have been provided for them. If they do not draw the full amounts in respect of this year, the balance of the funds will be carried over to expenditure next year.
The total amounts I have referred to include funds channelled through the International Bank and through the technical assistance programmes of the United Nations. They do not include amounts provided for military assistance, emergency expenditure, relief measures


and such like, which have amounted roughly to a further£30 million in each of the years in question. Relatively small amounts out of the totals I have quoted have gone to Australia and South Africa, mainly through contributions to International Bank loans to South Africa, but all the rest has gone to countries in the less developed category.
This very substantial increase in overseas aid has been made possible only by the improvement in the external financial provision of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the emphasis which has been laid by both my hon. Friends on the point that a favourable balance of payments and a sufficient surplus is absolutely fundamental to what we can afford to do in this way. The Government certainly intend to maintain a substantial volume of overseas aid, as the figures I have quoted make clear, but it would be false to imagine that we can go on increasing the amount as we have done in the last few years, because no country can afford to put out aid without regard to her own financial position.
If we once again got ourselves into deficit we should not be able to hold the£ sterling at its present exchange value. The effect of that, as hon. Members appreciate, would be that we would have to send out more exports, including capital goods, for the same quantity of imports. Therefore, our ability to give technical assistance overseas and to help with capital developments is integrally bound up with our ability to maintain sterling at its exchange value.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he relate it to the sterling balances? During those years when it is true that our balance of payments was not so good, there was a vast accumulation of sterling balances which helped us a great deal. Would he remind us and the country that when we are considering how much to invest in those countries, we should remember how much they invested—indirectly, it is true —by means of sterling balances in this country and that we owe them this debt as well as a moral debt?

Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is true that particularly in the immediate post-war years, the volume of sterling balances involved a great deal of in-

debtedness by Britain to other sterling area countries. I have always felt that in the whole of this question we must consider the different positions of different countries in the Commonwealth, both dependent and independent, who are closely hound with Britain through their sterling balances.
May I say a word about private investment? The figures which I have quoted exclude United Kingdom private investment overseas, and the total of this going to all countries has been averaging roughly –200 million a year, or over –300 million a year gross before taking account of inward investment into the United Kingdom. It is estimated that perhaps half the net outflow of private capital goes to less developed countries.
Of course, this flow of private capital is one of the factors which we have to take into account in considering how much of our resources and balance of payments we can afford to use for this purpose. I hope that we shall not underrate the importance of private investment in the more developed parts of the Commonwealth, because I do not believe that we can keep the Commonwealth together as a great political force for good in the world without this flow of private capital to the whole of it.
I turn, next, to Government bilateral and mutilateral aid. Our bilateral Government assistance goes mainly and normally to the Commonwealth and only in exceptional cases to other countries. Our contributions to multilateral organisations go in support of their programmes of assistance to their member countries, and the other main donor countries also provide their aid on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis. It would be unrealistic to expect that they would all agree to channel the whole of their effort through multilateral institutions. Indeed, I am not sure that that would necessarily be an ideal situation. For instance, it would hardly be an improvement if we put all our assistance to the Colonial Territories through some intermediary. At the same time, without any prejudice to our special relationships with the Commonwealth, there is scope for building up the international institutions in this field.
This leads me to say a word about international economic co-operation and international institutions. It is true that


there does not exist any single comprehensive set of arrangements for coordinating the aid provided by the various donor countries, and I do not think that this would be practicable. But there is a good deal of consultation and joint activity. Some of this is of an ad hoc kind to meet particular situations. Some arrangements are on a regional basis. I am thinking especially of the Consultative Committee of the Colombo Plan, which has just held its eleventh conference in Jogjakarta.
The Colombo Plan is the sum of all the individual plans of the countries of South and South-East Asia, and of the contributions of the Western countries in assistance of these plans. I was glad only recently when going round a technical college in Bradford to meet a pharmacologist who had been providing assistance in Nepal. I think that these conferences and the whole work channelled through the Colombo Plan are felt by every one concerned to provide a valuable meeting of minds.
In addition, as a permanent focus for the joint efforts of the countries of the free world, we have the institutions which have their origin in the Bretton Woods Conference towards the end of the war. First, there is the International Monetary Fund, which provides assistance for countries in temporary balance of payment difficulties, and not development capital, but which is an essential part of this group of institutions. Next, there is the International Bank, drawing capital from both Government and private sources, and lending it for development in both public and private sectors. Next, there is the Bank's newer and smaller affiliate, the International Finance Corporation, which is concerned solely with encouraging private investment in less developed countries. I remember piloting through the House the Bill authorising the United Kingdom's subscription to that Institution.
Finally, there is the proposal for a further affiliate of the International Bank, to be called the International Development Association, which is to provide development finance for the less-developed countries on more flexible terms than the Bank itself is able to offer. On 20th July, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade

said that the Government were prepared to join in working out plans for an International Development Association and that if acceptable plans came to fruition, the United Kingdom would contribute to its proposed resources of 1,000 million dollars the same proportion, roughly 14 per cent. as we subscribe to the capital of the International Bank. On that basis, our subscription to the I.D.A. would be about£50 million.
Intensive work is proceeding in Washington, where the executive directors of the International Bank are formulating draft articles of agreement for the proposed new association, which will then be submitted to member Governments. There is a very good prospect that the I.D.A. may be brought into being before very long. In that case member countries would pay part of their contributions at the outset and the other part spaced over five years.
For the time being, they can hardly be expected to contemplate setting up any further machinery or contributing to yet another capital development fund, over and above the I.D.A. But if the I.D.A. gets going, and proves a success, then member countries could consider supplementing its initial resources, in the same way as the orginally authorised capital of the International Bank was doubled earlier this year.
I should also mention the two meetings held in Washington in August of last year and March of this year. At those meetings a consortium of leading industrialised countries came together under the aegis of the International Bank to concert their financial assistance towards India's Second Five-Year Plan. I do not believe that one can overrate the importance to the West of the success of India's second Five-Year Plan, for the very simple reason that a tremendous battle is taking place for prestige in South-East Asia between India and Communist China. With all respect to a certain part of the British Press, I believe that it is a vital Western interest that India should win this battle for prestige. Each of the industrialised countries concerned has made its contribution on a bilateral basis, but within the framework of a concerted agreement, and I think that this could possibly serve as a useful model for adding to the total of aid in the future.


I am sorry to have spoken at rather a rapid rate, but we have an extremely good and varied list of subjects for debate today, and I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment or two longer. I greatly welcome what was said by my hon. Friend about agriculture. It is true that many underdeveloped countries have sometimes made the mistake of putting too much capital into heavy equipment before they have developed their agriculture sufficiently. It is perhaps worth remembering our own experience in Britain, for at the end of the seventeenth century, in the reign of King William III, half the population of this country were at hare subsistence level or below. We were able to have our own industrial revolution so successfully less than a century later only because we wisely had an agricultural revolution first and increased our food-producing capacity.
Moreover, however keen we may be on overseas aid, we can waste money in this sphere fully as much as in any other, and I am sure that we are right in the Treasury to adopt a stringent principle of scrutinising projects to make sure that the money is spent to the best advantage.
Finally, and most important, do not let us forget the significance of the fact that, at any rate, one country in the Western world, the United States, has now reached real affluence—and all the rest of the world know about it. I regard it as probably the most significant development of the twentieth century that in one part of our Western world we have reached so high a standard of living. Development is a concept which concerns the whole world. None of us can be indifferent to it. That is why I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it today.

NATIONAL SERVICE (HARDSHIP CASES)

1.39 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had any talks recently with National Service men. If he has, he has probably learned that the married men doing their National Service tend to become a community apart. They are so preoccupied with all the worries about their wives and sometimes about

their children, wondering how their wives are managing without them, that they become cut off from their fellows. If the men are so upset, how much more upset must their wives be when they are left alone, literally to carry the baby.
Last week, the Secretary of State for War told me that he estimated that 1,200 men had been released on compassionate grounds in the last year. I am concerned about those who have not been released and, even more, about those who are still being called up. It does not apply only to married men with young children. Some National Service men who are called up leave behind widowed mothers living alone or with young children. It is a striking thing that people are tending to marry very early nowadays. Out of 143,000 National Service men, roughly 19,000 are married men. Many of them have young children. The number of those with widowed mothers living alone is not known, but it must run into many thousands. I am absolutely certain that very real hardship is arising. I know that because dozens of cases have been brought to my attention in my constituency of Salford, East, and I am certain that there are other cases about which I never hear. If all this hardship is arising in one half of a city in one constituency, it is fair to multiply that by 630 to cover the hardship throughout the country. Many hon. Members have told me of cases arising in their own constituencies, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary is inundated with cases.
I will tell the House about one case which arose last month. It concerned a 21-year-old mother, Mrs. Dorothy Beckett, the wife of a ship's rigger at Salford docks. This couple, both aged 21, have a baby aged 2 and a baby aged 1. They are living in one of the worst housing areas in Salford, which is saying something. They live in a house without a bath, hot water or inside toilet, and it needs a man in the house to keep the elements out. The girl's mother used to live in the same street, but has now removed. If the man is called up, the girl will be left alone to cope with two babies.
Recently, there has been some relaxation by the Ministry, for which I am grateful. It was stated that exceptional hardship was at least likely to arise in the category of a National Service man


with a wife and baby. How much more likely is it to arise when there are two babies to look after? This was a cast-iron case. The man applied to the Military Service (Hardship) Committee, but was turned down. I regard this as utterly intolerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), who shares a desk with me in the typing room upstairs, told me when I mentioned it to him that he had an identical case with two young babies. These men are not volunteers. They are conscripts, and it is peace-time.
I can quote a number of hardship cases in Salford, but I am sure the same thing is happening in other constituencies. I remember one couple coming into my advice bureau, the father and the mother each carrying a sleeping child. The mother was finding it impossible to cope with the kiddies in her husband's absence. The bills and the debts were mounting. She was going frantic with worry. The young man had been absent without leave three times to get back to help his wife.
I remember being asked to meet another National Service man at 10.30 at night in the dark on a street corner in Salford. He was "on the run". The police were after him. He had gone home to be with his wife and children. I advised him to catch the midnight train back to his barracks, which he reluctantly did. I know another case where the man had been absent without leave six times to be with his family and had spent a considerable period in the Army gaol in consequence. I am told that at one barracks not 100 miles from Manchester there is a constant service of taxis in which men who have been absent without leave are taken back to barracks.
I wish now to tell the House about cases of widowed mothers being left alone. The first is a case of a father dying of cancer of the liver. There was a doctor's certificate to that effect. The mother had an internal operation and had been told by her doctor that she must not lift her husband from the bed on to the commode. There was also a young daughter of 11. I tried to get the National Service man a compassionate discharge, but failed. I tried to get him compassionate temporary

release and failed. The most that I could achieve was to get him moved to a barracks near his home. The father subsequently died and the mother was seriously ill. Despite that, the authorities would not release the young man from the Forces.
I received the following letter from another widowed mother:
I have written to the deferment board and they are as hard as nails. When I asked how I can live on my widow's pension I am informed I can apply for a grant. That grant is National Assistance. I shall refuse it.
My heart is not too good and recently I had an operation on my arm because I lost the use of my right hand. I am supposed to have another on my foot. At 62 one cannot face up to things as you can when you are younger.
This week I received another letter from a soldier's wife with a young son. She said that her husband's call-up had forced her to sell their home because she could not keep up the mortgage instalments and meet her mounting debts. She wrote:
The heartbreak of having to break up the first home I ever had got my nerves had, and the doctor attending me advised my husband not to leave me on any account. It is nearly impossible to get lodgings with a child. Please help me to save a once happy marriage.
I have learned from bitter experience of these cases that no consideration is taken of financial hardship because it is said that hardship grants are made. What do they amount to? For a widowed mother with two young children, including the soldier's allotment of 10s. 6d. and rent allowance, it amounts to five guineas a week for the mother and two children. Take the case of a National Service man who has finished his apprenticeship, as mostly they do, and is earning a man's wage of, say,£13 a week. That is not a fortune on which to bring up a family. If he is called up, the maximum the family will get, including the grants, family allowances and all other things, is£8 a week. That is a mighty drop in a family's income. It is not true to say that no financial hardship arises in that case.
I wish to mention an aspect which is generally ignored. It is wrong to separate men and women at that age and in that way. This sexual separation is unnatural. How much heartache is involved when the man is sent to the other end of the country or perhaps the


other end of the world? How many happy marriages are broken up in consequence? It may be said that this is a sentimental argument, to which I reply "So what?" Is the only consideration to be the needs of the military? Are not human needs also to be considered?
The Minister may also say that in wartime, when Hitler is at the gates, such sacrifices are made. That is certainly true, but Hitler is not at the gates, and many of these men are wasting their time in square bashing, potato peeling or just doing nothing.
The total number in the Forces at the moment is 565,000. Of these, 143,000 are National Service men. We all know that by December, 1962—and not before time—all the National Service men will be out. The total is then to be 375,000, which is 190,000 fewer than the present total. That means that if every National Service man were discharged today there would still be in the Forces 47,000 more men than would be required in December, 1962. A great relaxation is, therefore, possible, but I regret to say that it is not being made.
In May of this year the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor was good enough to receive a deputation consisting of my on. Friends the Members for Stocktonen-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), Newton (Mr. Lee), and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and myself. He received us most sympathetically. We told him that two years earlier the then Parliamentary Secretary had said —and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for quoting, because I do not want to err:
… there are certain classes of cases where exceptional hardship would be likely to arise from call-up and where alternative arrangements are often most difficult to make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c 148.]
He said that there were five such categories, and all of them were very reasonable.
There had not been any suggestion at that time, however, that an additional hardship of illness had to be proved. We said that although we understood that it was not necessary to prove that the widowed mother living on her own or the young wife with young children was ill, we now invariably found that unless a doctor's note certifying serious illness was produced the application was refused. The Parliamentary Secretary

agreed that that was wrong. He also agreed that an additional category of those cases where undue hardship was likely to arise should be included; that is to say, the National Service man with a child.
As I say, the Parliamentary Secretary was most sympathetic, and we went away well satisfied. Three days later, on 13th May, the Minister of Labour said that he was issuing instructions to his officials to consider with the fullest sympathy cases where experience had shown that exceptional hardship was likely to arise and alternative arrangements were often difficult to make. Such special consideration was to be given to married men with families where there were difficult home circumstances. I believe that the intentions were good, but the results have not proved to be good. Doctors' notes are still being sought, and, unless there is serious illness, there is no release.
I thought that the understanding as stated was good enough, but experience is showing that in different parts of the country the Ministers officials are interpreting this instruction in different ways. I cannot blame them for that, because there is no thermometer for measuring a degree of hardship. I must say that I believe that where there is a child or children there must be hardship in these cases, and it should not be necessary to have to prove any other degree of hardship. In addition, great uncertainty exists among a lot of these men, as they do not know whether or not they will be called up in a few months' time.
I am therefore driven to the conclusion that these whole categories should be postponed on hardship grounds. Last week the Secretary of State for War told me:
The difference between the hon. Member and myself on this point is that he has it in mind that the fact alone that a young man is married and has two children should of itself be grounds for excluding him from doing his National Service. I do not agree with that." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 497.]
I repeat—there must be hardship in these cases, and there should be no need to prove all the factors. Why could not the Government postpone these whole categories? Admittedly, it would mean an amendment of the Act, but that is not a revolutionary business. Acts are being—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot, on the Motion for the Adjournment, suggest amendments to legislation.

Mr. Allaun: That has rather stymied me, I must admit. However, I hope that it will be borne in mind that not long ago certain classes of teachers were granted postponement, and I hope that other classes can be treated similarly—

Mr. R. J. Mellish: This is an important point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend says that if married men with children were to be exempted, or their call-up postponed, it would need legislation. I should like to be quite clear about that, as I am not sure that he is right.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): Perhaps I may be able to help. I do not think that it would be necessary to amend the legislation. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) were to suggest that the procedure for postponement should be used I do not think that it would involve legislation, but if he were to suggest that they should be exempted under the existing legislation, I think it probably would involve an amendment of that existing legislation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was proposing legislation.

Mr. Allaun: Yes. I must apologise for my mistake, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the Parliamentary Secretary for showing me the way out of my error.
I hope that that course will be followed. Even if a handful of men were postponed who were not in real hardship, no tragedy would result. There is room for relaxation, as the figures I have quoted show. There are more men than are needed and, in any case, National Service is shortly to be ended altogether. There are real objections to a selective call-up. That is unfair to men called up while others in other jobs are not, but I do not think that any reasonable person could object to the deferment of these categories of men, which is a far better alternative.
If this proposal were adopted, it would mean that men in these categories who are already serving would also be able to obtain compassionate discharge. On a previous occasion a Government spokesman said that the same conditions which apply for deferment of call-up would apply to men already in the Forces. If the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to give an undertaking now I would like at least to ask him to consult his Minister and the Minister of Defence to see whether this proposal could be accepted.

1.58 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I want to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that the whole question of those now liable for call-up in these last remaining months should be looked at very sympathetically. My hon. Friend has a very good reputation in this matter, because for many months now he has been arguing that at any rate a married man with children should not be called up. Of course, it is always argued against him, and those who think like him, that this procedure creates so many anomalies.
The problem of call-up generally is that it immediately creates anomalies, and always has. Certain classes always have to be deferred because of their work, and under the present Act it is the luck of birth whether or not a young man is called up. I am fortunate enough to have a son who misses call-up because he happens to have been born a month later than the stated date.
When we talk of anomalies, I am always very much reminded of the late Ernest Bevin, who I consider to have been the greatest Minister of Labour that ever lived. He always said that the Ministry of Labour could do anything, provided it had a Minister who was strong and powerful enough to say to his men, "This will be done. Find ways of doing it and if you get into any trouble while you are doing it I will protect you." In other words, he gave the orders at the top and protected all those down the line, and consequently they found ways of putting into effect the orders that he gave.
It will be remembered that there was a national call-up during the war. Millions of people were involved, and as a consequence there were many


anomalies. I remember a time when the miners were called up. Then it was realised that this was a mistake and the miners were left alone. There is no doubt that there are large numbers of people clue for call-up but who need not be called up if a direction comes from the Minister. My hon. Friend for Salford, East has mentioned a case based on his own experience.
We know that the Navy do not want any men. I understand that the Royal Air Force requirements are infinitesimal. Therefore, the majority of these young boys will go into the Army when they are called up. I speak with knowledge, having been round many Army camps during the last year and having discussed National Service, and I find that Army commanders are perturbed at the fact that in trying to build an Army for the future they have an element of National Service men, which is at times an embarrassment to them.
My hon. Friend made a fair point when he said that when many of these boys are called up there is not much for them to do when they get to their units. There n no longer the need for overseas service. That is going out fast. These men, in the main, have to perform camp duties and that sort of thing, which is so frustrating.
A directive should go out in the case of all married men, particularly those with children, to the effect that each individual case shall be considered sympathetically to see whether such men need be called up at all. One of the problems that I find with the young married man is that he has almost invariably got a housing problem; children have come along rather quickly, and he is living with in-laws. Then we get the young wife approaching Members of Parliament and local councillors asking us to help to solve their problems.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give more than a sympathetic answer, and I should like him to give us very good reasons if he cannot meet us. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can assess the numbers involved, but I suggest that after June of next year large numbers of youngsters who would have been due for call-up will not, in fact, be called up. I do not believe that the Minister or, indeed, the Government are inhuman. I believe they are just as

sympathetic as we are in these matters. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make a gesture of good will and to say that in spite of the anomalies which will be created, he will say to the officers in the Ministry of Labour, "This you will do" and, as in the days of "Ernie" Bevin, we can be certain that the Ministry will find ways of dealing with the matter to the satisfaction of us all.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on having raised this matter. I wish to refer briefly to one aspect of the question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has alluded to the married man with children. I should like to make a special plea for the only son of a widow. I noticed in the Report of the Ministry of Labour for 1958, the last one issued, there were 2,063 cases refused by hardship committees. I take it that some of those cases are among those referred to by my hon. Friend. Many of us have had our attention drawn to such cases. They include not only the married man, but also the widow.
In the United States of America the only son of a widow is never called up. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to have consultations with the officials at the Ministry. I am sure that they give sympathetic consideration to these cases, but I suggest that where it is clearly established that a man is the only son of a widow a special arrangement should be made whereby on the first application, without having to go before a hardship committee, an authorised person should be able to release a man in that position from being called up.
I have two cases in mind. In one, there is a young man in Birmingham whose mother is ill. She has worked herself into a nervous condition because of the prospect of his being called up in January. I have had to tell her that the case will have to go before the hardship committee. Another case is of a young man, who is not the only son but is the only son at home, his father being in prison. That family has enough anxiety already. I have much sympathy for the case to which my hon. Friend the


Member for Salford, East has referred, but I think, also, that it is very sad for a widow who is torn with nervous anxiety because her only son is to be called up, knowing that so many hardship cases have been refused and that it is unlikely that he will be exempted except on health grounds.

2.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has for many years demonstrated great interest in the matters which have been raised in this debate and his speech today was delivered, if I may say so, with characteristic sincerity. There is no doubt that he and his hon. Friends who have spoken have a real appreciation of the difficulties that often arise when men with family responsibilities are called up to do their National Service. This appreciation of the difficulties involved is shared equally by my right hon. Friend and myself as well as by those in my Department. I should not like it to be thought that the human aspects about which the hon. Gentleman spoke so eloquently are not fully and sympathetically considered in the many cases with which we have to deal.
As the hon. Member will know, there is no Government Department with more experience of or greater concern for human problems than the Ministry of Labour. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made a plea for us to look at these questions sympathetically and I can assure him that we will. He also mentioned that the numbers of National Service men may, in the context of military requirements at the moment, be embarrassing. I can assure him that that matter is considered extremely carefully. As he knows, there are at the moment 50,000 young men who were expecting to be called up and who have now been told that they will be released from their National Service obligations. The matter is continually being looked at.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) mentioned two cases. I should be grateful if he would get in touch with me about those two cases, and either write to me or see me about them. He will understand that

one cannot deal with examples such as those without knowing the full details. I shall be very pleased to see him at any time about the cases that he has mentioned.
The hon. Member for Salford, East stated that about 19,000 married men are now doing their National Service. Many of those, of course, have married after they have enlisted, and there are no statistics of the number who have children. In any event, the hon. Member will appreciate that the question of compassionate release from the forces on grounds of hardship is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. Our concern is with those who have not yet been called up and it is to that part of the hon. Member's speech that I should like to confine my remarks.
As hon. Members will know, National Service is a general statutory liability and only a few small classes of men are not liable in law. These categories which are exempted by law are, for example, ministers of religion, blind persons and mental deficients. In addition to this exemption of certain classes or categories, there are provisions whereby the strict obligation to do National Service can be relaxed in respect of certain individuals. These are, first, the provisions for deferment, and, secondly, the provisions for postponement, both being quite different provisions with quite different objects.
Deferment can be given in the case of students and apprentices and for people in certain categories of employment. It is through these provisions that certain classes of teachers, to whom the hon. Member for Salford, East referred, were not called up. Postponement is a special provision to deal with cases where exceptional hardship would result if the individual were called up for service.
There are, of course, certain groups of people on whose members National Service would impose more hardship than it would on the members of other groups. Most hon. Members would, however, agree that there can never be certain and complete generalisation and that each case of hardship must be considered on its individual merits.
The hon. Member has suggested that the procedure for postponement should be used as a device to exempt from


National Service all married men with dependent children. The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned another category of men with widowed mothers living alone or with young dependants. To use the postponement provisions in such an indiscriminate way would be a grave misuse of the statutory intention of the postponement provisions and would in many cases operate unfairly. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates this. Probably his main concern —certainly, the main concern of the hon. Member for Bermondsey—was that full and proper consideration should he given under the existing postponement procedure to the hardship involved when men with family responsibilities are called up.

Mr. Mellish: Ordinarily, if National Service were not within sight of being abandoned, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that postponement used in that way would be quite wrong. We are, however, nearing the end of National Service. Surely it would be a good thing to use just that procedure to ensure that whole classes of people were not called up. The anomalies already exist and, as we argued earlier, there will always be anomalies.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Can the Parliamentary Secretary think of any case of a married man with a child or children in which there is not exceptional hardship in the case of call-up? Surely, everything depends upon the interpretation of "exceptional hardship". At a time when National Service is drawing to an end, in any event, is not this an exceptional hardship which should be taken into consideration?

Mr. Thomas: One can imagine many cases of married men with children where there would not be exceptional hardship. There are many cases where men and women are living separate and apart. There are extreme administrative difficulties, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey appreciated when he said that almost all in those classes should not be called up. That is a different matter.
The general tenor of the debate is that full and proper consideration should be given under the existing provisions to questions of hardship involved when married men with family responsibilities or with widowed mothers with dependants are called up. I hope that I can

satisfy the House on this matter and assure hon. Members that we are giving particular and sympathetic attention to all applications for postponement that come from men within those groups.
As the House will know, applications for postponement are first dealt with by my Department. My right hon. Friend, through his authorised officers, can grant an application, but he cannot refuse one. If he fails to grant an application, there is an appeal to the independent military service hardship committee and there are provisions for appeal from that committee to an independent umpire.

Mr. J. Silverman: Is this a ground of hardship which the hardship tribunal cannot consider? In a case which I have referred to the Ministry, I am told that the hardship tribunal, being a statutory body, can go no further than its terms of reference before the Minister's statement of 13th May.

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Member will allow me to develop what I want to say, I think that he may be satisfied. The hardship committee is an independent committee. Before the matter goes to the hardship committee, it goes to the authorised officers of my Department. The hon. Member will find that the authorised officers in the Ministry of Labour can play a great part in this matter.
Since 1957, the authorised officers of my Department have been instructed to make favourable assumptions in dealing with certain kinds of domestic cases where exceptional hardship was particularly likely to arise. Included amongst those are cases where the applicant is the only adult living with a widowed mother and cases of married men with children in which there are difficult home circumstances. The hon. Member for Salford, East referred to these instructions and described them as good intentions, but said that since then nothing had happened. I must emphatically disagree with the hon. Member, because the facts are entirely to the contrary.
During this year, there has been a record number of applications for postponement on grounds of hardship. Already, over 7,000 applications have been made. In 1957, the figure was 5,125; in 1956, 4,188; and in 1956 there


were three times as many men registered fit for National Service as there are today. Of the 7,000 applications in 1959, 75 per cent. have been granted, as opposed to 65 per cent. in 1957 and 59 per cent. in 1956.
Although we are unable to analyse the applications to show the circumstances on which they were based, it seems quite clear that very few married men with dependent children can have failed if they made an application for postponement. I was, therefore, somewhat concerned to hear the hon. Member for Salford, East talk about dozens of cases in his constituency and the numerous cases that he could mention.
The hon. Member, with his usual courtesy, was good enough to let me know before this debate the points he would make and the individual cases that he would mention. I am grateful to him for that, because it has given me an opportunity to make inquiries. The hon. Member mentioned one or two extra cases today, and I shall certainly inquire into them. Even with the additional two cases, however, the hon. Member has mentioned only one case which has any reference to my Department. That is the case of Mr. Beckett, in which there are a wife and two children living in poor housing conditions. I agree that that is a case which well merits attention. I have inquired about it and I am informed that leave to appeal to the umpire has been granted. As the matter is now sub judice, the hon. Member will understand that I cannot comment on it.
Concerning the case to which the hon. Member referred on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), who unfortunately, is not able to be with us today, I have been unable to trace any case in my Department from him similar to the one quoted by the hon. Member. As far as I can ascertain, the hon. Member for Salford, East has not taken up any case of this kind with my right hon. Friend or myself or with

our predecessors during the whole of this year. If, however, he has any case of the kind described, I would be only too pleased if he would write to me or see me about it.
I have made inquiries into the type of case which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Salford, East and by the hon. Member for Ladywood—that is, married men with dependants or a man with a widowed mother—and I find that in most cases where they were recently called up, they have not applied for postponement, or that where they have applied they have not stated their full domestic circumstances.
Although most married men with dependants who apply for such postponement are now getting it, we are taking the further precaution, as was hoped for by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, to ensure that no deserving case is overlooked. A supplementary instruction is being sent out this week by my right hon. Friend to our authorised officers, reminding them to examine fully all cases put before them, and to seek further information from the applicant when his case has been inadequately set out, so that postponement can be granted wherever and as soon as possible. They are also being asked to refer doubtful cases to my right hon. Friend, and to accept all applications made after the proper time unless they are clearly frivolous or dilatory.
I hope that the House will agree that this latest instruction should provide every possible safeguard against deserving cases being overlooked, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that particular and sympathetic attention will continue to be given to those categories to which they have referred in this debate.

Mr. Allaun: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, and particularly for giving us particulars of the latest instruction, which should be very well received?

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (ARMAMENTS CONTROL AGENCY)

2.21 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the inspection and control of armaments in Western Europe, because, as one who believes very much in the need for a united Europe, I am disturbed at the growing volume of criticism and protest, especially in this country, as German rearmament proceeds. Perhaps the fears are understandable and, to some extent, inevitable. Nevertheless, I believe them to be based to some extent on ignorance of the existing safeguards.
It would, indeed, be tragic at this moment, when there seems at least to be a lightening of the horizon of the world at large, if the old suspicions and the old fears which divided Europe for so many centuries were to awaken once again. Furthermore, I want to show that Western Europe has an instrument which was expressly created and which is well designed to set these fears at rest. I refer to Western European Union's Agency for the Control of Armaments. Perhaps here I should declare a connection, because I happen to be the rapporteur to the Western European Union Defence Committee for this subject, and it is therefore my duty to acquaint myself with the work of the Agency, and to try to look at it from the point of view of the alliance as a whole. I suggest that that is the point of view from which we should all try to look at it.
I want to be perfectly frank with the House and say at the very outset that I am far from easy at the way things are going at the present time, and that is the other reason why I sought permission to raise the matter today.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the origins of the Agency and the legal framework within which it works, and 1 would only remind the House of the very great importance that was attached to the control provisions of the modified Brussels Treaty at the time it was signed. If they will turn to Article IX of the main Treaty, hon. Members will find that the work of the Agency is the only subject on which the Council of Ministers is ex-

pressly required to report annually to the Assembly. Indeed, the prospect of inspection and control, coupled with Germany's renunciation of the right to make nuclear weapons herself, was, perhaps, the prime condition which made her rearmament acceptable to a great many people in Europe.
After the Treaty came into force, not much time was wasted before the Agency was set up, and I take the opportunity of saying that I think we were very fortunate in securing the services of Admiral Ferreri as chairman or director of the Agency. He is a man of great integrity of character and very great ability, who has done his utmost to make control harmonious and successful. Tribute should also be paid to the N.A.T.O. military authorities, because it may not be generally realised that a good deal of this control system is, in fact, delegated to them. From the inquiries I have made, I realise that they have co-operated 100 per cent. in the work from the very beginning. All the same, there are three pressing needs before the control can be effective, or anything like that visualised at the time the Treaty came into force.
In the first place, the strengths of the forces which are permitted for internal defence and security must be fixed. Secondly, the legal instrument which provides for the protection of private interests against abuses by inspectors must be ratified. Thirdly, the Agency must be enlarged by the staff qualified to carry out control of nuclear weapons and authorised to begin preparatory work. I wish to say a word or two about each of these in turn.
Until the level of the internal defence and police forces has been fixed, the Agency has been instructed to accept whatever level each nation declares on its own account. Of course, a control conducted on these lines has some value from the point of view of an exercise, but it is something very far short of what was visualised in the original Treaty, and no progress can be made under this heading until a Convention which deals with this matter, which was signed two years ago almost to the day, has been ratified by all the nations in the alliance.
So far, five out of seven have ratified it, and Germany and Luxembourg have not yet done so. I do not know why


Luxembourg has delayed, but I cannot believe for a moment that it would wish to obstruct this most important work. In the case of Germany, it is right that we should recognise that under the Federal Constitution the process of ratification is a very much more complicated business than it is with the other nations of the alliance. I would have thought, however, that that was a reason for making an early start, and I have been unable to discover that so far anything has been done.
As I think the House will agree, this is a matter of some concern to Germany's friends, amongst whom I number myself, because it stands to reason that those people who are still suspicious of her, who find it difficult to forget the tragic events of the earlier part of this century, are bound to watch what she is doing in this respect and, to some extent, to judge her good faith by what happens.
The consequences of the delay in ratifying the legal instrument, which, incidentally, was also signed two years ago, is somewhat different. Until it comes into force, the Agency's inspectors can only visit factories and establishments by agreement with Governments and firms concerned. This naturally involves the granting of advance notice, and this conflicts directly with Article XI of Protocol 4, the beginning of which reads as follows:
Inspections by the Agency shall not be of a routine character, but shall be in the nature of tests carried out at irregular intervals.
So far, not a single nation has ratified that instrument. However, last week Her Majesty's Government announced their intention of ratifying it and laid the preliminary instrument for that purpose. Unfortunately, the eagle eye of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) detected a grammatical error in the instrument, and as a result there has been a delay. However, that is of no great consequence, and I should like to congratulate the Government on taking the lead in this matter and to express the hope that they will use their best endeavours to persuade other nations to follow suit.
I come now to the question of control of nuclear weapons, which is partly governed by the same clauses of the agreement as that of chemical and bio-

logical weapons. Article III of the Third Protocol reads:
When the development of atomic, biological and chemical weapons in the territory on the mainland of Europe of the High Contracting Parties who have not given up the right to produce them has passed the experimental stage and effective production of them has started there, the level of stocks that the High Contracting Parties concerned will be allowed to hold on the mainland of Europe shall be decided by a majority of the Council of Western European Union".
The House will appreciate that Germany, having renounced the right to make these weapons, is not affected by this Article, but, nevertheless, I do not take this to mean that factories or establishments in Germany which might be capable of their manufacture should therefore be exempt from inspection. I do not for a moment think it means that.
Hon. Members may well feel that this Article is an absolute model of bad drafting. What, after all, is meant by the expression "effective production"? Taken quite literally, the Article means that control of these weapons, which are most deadly ones and were most feared when the Treaty was signed, is left to a voluntary declaration by each of the member nations, and yet it can be easily argued that any industrial nation is capable of large scale manufacture of these chemical weapons at the shortest possible notice. I dare say that it is true of biological weapons.
In the case of nuclear weapons the limiting factor, so far as we know, and, of course, given the knowledge of how to make them, is presumably the supply of fissile material. It means that any nation which has nuclear reactors would be able to prepare large-scale production long before it made its first test explosion. It was for that reason that the Assembly of Western European Union urged about a year ago that Article III of the Protocol I have just read should be applied now and that the necessary preparations should be made by extending the staff of the Agency so that control might begin effectively as soon as production began.
However, nothing has been done, and, according to rumour—I put it no higher than that—the difficulty has been the failure of the Council of Ministers to achieve unanimity. If that is so, I should like to ask why the Article is necessary because the voting rules are


very clearly laid down in Article VIII of the main Treaty which reads that:
The Council shall decide by unanimous vote questions for which no other voting procedure has been or may be agreed.
It goes on:
It will decide by simple majority questions submitted to it by the Agency for the Control of Armaments.
Again it is only a rumour, but I understand that it has been argued that questions relating to the staff of the Agency do not qualify for the majority rule. I do not know whether the Government accept that, or whether they challenge it. I hope they challenge it. I certainly do. because who can really doubt that those who framed the Treaty intended that the Agency should be free of risk of veto? I do not think there can be any question at all about that.
It is sometimes argued that Britain's influence in this matter is weakened by the fact that the United Kingdom is exempt from these provisions of the Treaty. I have heard it stated that some of our Allies have come rather to resent this. I very much doubt whether it is as important as it sounds. After all, the great bulk of the forces which we make available for N.A.T.O. are on the Continent already and are, therefore, already subject to control. The great bulk of the forces we retain in these islands are retained in connection with the requirements of overseas emergency and are, therefore, exempt in any case from the Treaty. It is notorious that we retain very few forces in this country for the home defence of our islands. Nevertheless, if it were true that by voluntarily submitting ourselves to the same rules as our Allies we should encourage them to co-operate more vigorously, then I think we ought to consider that. because our interest in the success of this Treaty is so great that we should not lightly reject anything which will make it a success.
I do not wish to paint too dark a picture of the present situation. It is one of light and shade. Such control as has been exercised has been exercised in a surprisingly harmonious manner. Not only has valuable experience been gained, but it is true that members of Western European Union know far more about one another's armed forces than car ever have been the case between independent sovereign Powers in years

gone by. There is no doubt about that. Neither have the delays in making control effective mattered very much up to date, but the time is approaching when it is surely important, if the Treaty is to be operated properly, that this control should come into effective force.
After all, the control of armaments forms a part of the Treaty into which each nation of the Western European Union entered freely and most solemnly, and failure to honour that part of the Treaty would not only arouse deep misgivings but might make many people ask how far we are bound by its other provisions.
Besides that, there are wider implications in this matter. Both Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government have recently tabled proposals for comprehensive disarmament. Both sets of proposals depend, as such proposals must depend, upon an effective system of inspection and control. We know there are cynics and doubters who deny the feasibility of this control. Here in Western Europe we already have such a system long since established by the Treaty. If we can point to it as being in effective and friendly operation that surely would at least be some evidence in favour of attempting a world-wide system, but if, on the other hand, we fail, then the opponents of disarmament will ask what hope there can be of success between nations divided by fears and mistrust when even the friends have failed. I do not know what answer we could give to that criticism, and I do not know that there is an answer.
That is why I hope that this short debate will show that all parties in Britain are resolved to do their utmost to make the control provisions of the Paris Agreements workable and to fulfil them both in letter and in spirit.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I think that we should congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) on bringing this subject before the House today. He has done a useful job in drawing our attention to some things which we have for too long taken for granted, and by bringing his expert experience of the Services to bear he has perhaps pointed out some weak-


nesses which it will be useful for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to note, or which, maybe, the Under Secretary will be able to clear up in his reply.
I have not the practical, technical experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. My only claim to any interest in defence matters is that a long time ago I occupied the humble position of Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. However, that was in the early days when this system was being built up and certainly in those days we were hoping to build up what was to be a watertight system. Now I am a bit disturbed to find that there are these loopholes in what was finally drafted.
Let us be quite clear what the main job of this Agency is. The first one is to ensure that the undertakings given by the German Federal Republic that it would not manufacture certain types of armaments have been observed and are being observed. That is the main job, and the second and subsidiary one is to control the level of stocks of those weapons held by each member of Western European Union on the Continent of Europe.
The deficiencies which the hon. and gallant Member has brought to our notice today certainly need some attention. I was particularly struck by one question which he raised and I should be interested to hear the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs attempt to say what are defence forces. How can we define the forces which are necessary for maintaining the internal defence of a country? Indeed, what are military forces—

ROYAL ASSENT

2.41 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:— and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Mr. Speaker Morrison's Retirement Act, 1959.
2. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1959.
3. Marshall Scholarships Act, 1959.
4. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1959.

5. Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1959.
6. Commonwealth Scholarships Act, 1959.
7. Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959.
8. Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act, 1959.
9. Judicial Pensions Act, 1959.
10. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1959.
11. Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Act, 1959.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (ARMAMENTS CONTROL AGENCY)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: When that slight interruption took place, I was referring to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks about the difficulty of defining defence forces and of even defining military forces.
Not long ago, I was going along the border between East and West Germany. On looking through the barbed wire, I saw some well-armed men who, I remarked, were probably members of the East German Army. I was assured that they were not; they were police. The line between armed police and soldiers must be very thin indeed. I think that that illustrates the kind of difficulty which any organisation has in working out a Treaty of this kind. Nevertheless, this Treaty is fairly definite in its wording, and if, in the course of experience, weaknesses have been revealed, now is the opportunity to call attention to them.
I was particularly interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion that if the exemption from inspection which Britain enjoys is an obstacle in the way of getting general agreement and acceptance, there is no reason why we should not waive that exemption, because I suggest that we in this country have nothing to hide. I believe that it is correct to say that we recently opened Gibraltar to inspection under this Treaty.
That is an example of the way in which this country is willing to cooperate, and I think that if the Minister


can reassure us on the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman it will help considerably in getting an efficient system of inspection in Western Europe and may well lead to an efficient system of inspection for disarmament generally.

2.57 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) on having raised this debate in the House. He is, as I think the House knows, and if I may say so with respect, doing an excellent job as the rapporteur of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union. No one is better qualified to raise this matter than my hon. and gallant Friend, and I have two reasons why I am glad he has done so.
First, as my hon. and gallant Friend said towards the end of his remarks, if seven friends cannot maintain an effective system of control of armaments and inspection there is very little hope for anything that may emerge from a Summit Conference. Secondly, as my hon. arid gallant Friend also said, there are suspicions of Germany being re-aroused by hon. Members opposite and in the country.
Now, as to that, I should like to recall to the House an extract from a recommendation which was passed by the Assembly of Western European Union, in March, 1957. It reads as follows:
That all Western forces he equipped on equal terms with tactical atomic weapons and those guided missiles which improve technical warfare.
That was part of a recommendation attached to Colonel Fens's great report of that year which was passed—I was a member at the time—by 39 votes in favour and 7 against with 19 abstentions.
It is important, I think, to realise that we cannot have first-class and second-class troops in any alliance and that what we are armed with, therefore, Germany must in time be armed with, too. If that is accepted, it becomes all the more necessary that this Agency, which was set up in Protocol IV to the Brussels Treaty, should be effective. My hon. and gallant Friend said that hon. Members are aware of what that Agency is supposed to do, but I think it important

that those outside the House should also be aware of it.
Briefly, it has two tasks. It has to satisfy itself that the undertakings in Protocol III not to manufacture certain types of armaments are observed and, secondly, in Annexe 4 to Protocol III, it has to control the level of stocks of armaments held by each member on the mainland of the Continent in accordance with a majority vote of the Council of Western European Union and ensure that they are not exceeded. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) referred to loopholes in the agreement. But I do not think that it is so much a question of loopholes as of its not being properly observed. However, we shall hear from my hon. Friend later about that. It is rather disturbing to realise that some of its terms have not yet been ratified. I hope that we shall hear something about that.
To deal with the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend that we should add to our commitments to persuade our friends to honour theirs, I would only say that I do not think that the time has come for that. I am not at all sure that, in principle, it would be a good thing to do. We have sufficient commitments of our own which, so far as I am aware, we are honouring, but we shall hear from my hon. Friend about that.
Lastly, there is this idea in the air. outside the House, at any rate, and perhaps inside it, to conclude that the Federal Republic of Germany has now got nuclear armaments. My own impression is that the Federal Republic has not got such armaments under her own control at the moment. I would ask my hon. Friend to make this position abundantly cleat.

3.1 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), in raising this subject, referred to the fact that many people, including, unfortunately, some of my hon. Friends, were persuaded four or five years ago to accept German rearmament by the argument that it would be kept within bounds by the Brussels Treaty and the Armaments Control Agency. Unfortunately, those safeguards are proving to be illusory, the fears of many of us are


proving to be justified, and that has been borne out to some extent by the two speeches which have been made from the other side of the House.
I want to refer to the fact that, although the Armaments Control Agency is empowered to satisfy itself that the German Federal Republic is carrying out its obligation in regard to nuclear weapons, that obligation is limited to the obligation—I am quoting from Article I of Protocol III:—
…not to manufacture in its territory atomic, biological and chemical weapons.
There is, therefore, nothing whatsoever within the terms of the amended Brussels Treaty to prevent Germany from entering into joint production agreements for the manufacture of nuclear weapons with, say, France and for them to be manufactured on French territory and to be imported into Germany, and, in fact, there are good reasons to believe that such arrangements are already in progress. Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent Germany from obtaining, by purchase or otherwise, such weapons from abroad, and, in fact, the Germans are engaged in doing so.
The Times today carries a report of information made available by the West German Defence Ministry, in Bonn, in which a list is given of the missiles of nuclear capacity which are being supplied to the Bundeswehr. They include the Nike-Ajax, the Nike-Hercules, the Hawk, the Sidewinder—which are antiaircraft missiles—the Honest John, the Matador and the Mace-which are ground-to-ground missiles—and others, and it is pointed out that
Of these, the Nike-Hercules, Honest John, Matador, and Mace are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The extraordinary statement is made—I should like to hear what the Joint Under-Secretary has to say about this—that
… the Hawk will eventually he fitted with a nuclear warhead.
In other words, there is no question of there being any separation between the missile and its warhead in that particular case.
The Mace missile, for the purchase of which£40 million has been allotted by the Federal German Defence Committee, is said to have a range of 950 miles. That

is no longer even a tactical nuclear weapon. It is a strategic nuclear weapon which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, if not to Moscow, to places like Leningrad and Kiev—provided, of course, that the missiles, if they are ever fired, are fired in an eastward direction.
If it were to happen, as happened in the last war, that the supposition of hon. Members opposite, that German weapons, if used, would be used against the East, were not to be realised, and if those weapons were ever to be used in a westward direction, those missiles would be able to blast every city in the British Isles, not only London, but Bristol, Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and even Aberdeen and Belfast.
Many of us on this side of the House cannot feel assured that what happened between the wars and the process which was started by the Anglo-German Naval Treaty and which ended with V-bombs dropping on London will not happen again. We are therefore justifiably anxious about all these tendencies.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that German rearmament before the Second World War was started by the Anglo-German Naval Treaty?

Mr. Warbey: It was not started, but it was encouraged by the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, which was the first official breach of the Versailles system.
It was very much like some of the arrangements made today and was intended to be restrictive, but in reality it opened the first breach. We are now seeing the opening of the breaches in the system which was supposed to have been set up by the Paris Agreement and the Brussels Treaty four or five years ago, breaches which may well involve this country in considerable danger in future.
Even if they do not, these breaches at least create an extremely unfavourable atmosphere in which to prepare for a Summit Conference, at which it is hoped to bring about a relaxation of international tension through mutual concessions by both sides. I suggest that we should recognise how illusory the safeguards which were drawn up four or five years ago have proved to be, and


that we should concentrate our attention on using all our political ability to resist the dangerous developments which are taking place in the direction of the encouragement of a revival of German militarism and intransigence which may well again be a danger to the peace of Europe and the world.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I must for a moment challenge the historical recollections of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). To say that the Anglo-German Treaty of 1935 was the first breach of the Treaty of Versailles is so wildly contrary to the facts that me compares the hon. Member with the clock which strikes thirteen times. One begins to doubt whether anything else which he said could possibly have been true.
In point of fact, the first open breach of German disarmament was the occupation of the Rhineland. As with some oilier breaches, one now realises that in those days Germany conducted her rearmament on the safe soil of Russia, far from the prying eyes of the Western democracies, and that her rearmament was already far gone before anyone knew anything about it in public, except the Russians.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member has voiced the suspicions which exist among hon. Members opposite and, to some extent, in the country about German rearmament. I therefore urge the importance of the debate which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) has initiated. If we and the seven nations of Western European Union can get the Armament Control Agency working as it is designed to work according to Treaty, many of those suspicions can be dispelled. If it is true—as I do not accept —that the Federal Republic of Germany is arming itself with atomic weapons, the Agency provides a method by which the degree to which Germany rearms itself with these weapons can be controlled, just as well as can the other members of Western European Union.
Therefore, it is very much in the interest of all the nations comprising Western European Union to see that this Agency works very much better in the future than it has done in the past. There is very hide reason why it should not. If it is

not possible for these seven nations, all contiguous and all of a similar type—industrialised Westernised nations—to iron out their difficulties, if it is not possible for them to agree to some measure of armaments control and inspection among themselves, what chance is there that these arrangements can be made between nations hostile to each other?
This Treaty and the Armaments Control Agency, after a period of quiescence during which Western European Union has been rather overtaken in importance by the Council of Europe, O.E.E.C. and N.A.T.O., provide a forum where the very questions which are so energetically and anxiously discussed can be discussed with great point.
The Treaty provides a method of arms control, including the arms of Western Germany. It provides a method of settling what the level of armaments in Western Germany shall be at a time when we realise that not all nations have contributed what they said they would contribute and when the United States is extremely anxious to know what the level of European armaments will be in the future. Lastly, it provides an opportunity for the United Kingdom to meet with the six nations of the Common Market.
I know that the Western European forum does not provide for all the subjects which are of great importance. but those are three of the most important. It does not provide for an economic arrangement between the six nations, but can anyone doubt that in the immediate future the steps that must be taken to improve European collaboration will be not economic but political in character, and connected, also, with defence and disarmament?
Western European Union and this Treaty provide a first-class opportunity for these questions to be decided. I welcome very much the speech of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the Western European Assembly in Paris the other day, in which he suggested that there should be periodical meetings, after the meetings of the European Economic Community, between the Assembly and the Council of W.E.U. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to push that suggestion forward and carry on in that way.
If this debate serves its purpose by giving publicity to these complex and


very important matters it will have done a great deal to further collaboration in Europe.

3.13 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): In opening the debate, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), spoke with great authority derived from his position. When I saw that he had put down this Motion I got hold of one of his published works and read it. It is, if I may say so, very good. Partly from it and partly from what he was kind enough to tell me, I had an idea of the points which he has raised. I should like to take the opportunity both to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for and to congratulate him upon what has been doing in this very important field.
My hon. and gallant Friend—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) stressed it particularly—said that the Control Agency was really the keystone in the whole N.A.T.O. structure when Germany joined N.A.T.O. Germany was brought into N.A.T.O. because it was felt that she must make some contribution towards the defence of the West. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) emphasised that at that time there was a considerable amount of anxiety among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the possibilitiy of resurgent German militarism. The Armaments Control Agency gave the peoples of the West, who had suffered from German militarism, a guarantee against its resurgence.
I have here a whole speech about the activities of the Agency, but in view of the shortness of the time available to me, and the obvious knowledge of hon. Members who have spoken, I do not intend to go into them in detail. The essence of the debate has been to stress how vital this Agency is; to make sure that is working as efficiently as it should be; and for us all to be able to feel satisfied that its functions are not being whittled away by modifications to the Brussels Treaty or by any other means.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) listed the two main functions

of the Agency. First, it has to make sure that the Germans observe their undertaking not to manufacture certain weapons and, secondly, it has to control the level of stocks. The idea has crept into the debate that the Agency is not working as well as it should be, but I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend would subscribe to that view. The Agency is working very well. There is no cause to complain of what it has been doing. During 1958, for instance, its inspections to verify the level of stocks covered 22 military depots and 11 armaments factories. The inspections in Germany, to check that the Germans were not manufacturing weapons they had undertaken not to manufacture, were concentrated this year on aircraft production. In the two previous years they were concerned with warships and guided missiles. The Agency's work in both these fields was efficiently carried out, and it was able to report confidently that there was no contravention of the Treaty.
But I do not think that the House is very worried about the inspection of conventional weapons; the anxiety expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend and other hon. Members is more concerned with the nuclear side, and to some extent the way in which the revised Brussels Treaty has been modified.
I know that there has been some disagreement as to whether or not the Agency should have a nuclear expert now. It is suggested that this expert should be appointed now, so that the preparatory work can be started. On the other hand, it is argued that there is no point in making those preparations until effective production of nuclear weapons has begun, because it is only when that stage is reached that the W.E.U. Council can decide on the appropriate level of stocks. This matter is still under discussion. We certainly would not oppose the appointment of an expert now.
My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the use of the unanimity rule. This is a very nice legal problem. I am not sure that I altogether agree with my hon. and gallant Friend in this matter, but I shall look into it again. Despite the lack of a nuclear team at the moment, having read the Agency's report I do not feel that its work is being hamstrung now


or that it is likely to be ineffective in the future.
My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned that there were reactors in Germany and indicated that enriched material might be obtained from those plants and used for military purposes. In practice there are very few commercial reactors in Germany. I think that there are four or five there. Germany cannot obtain her fissile material from any source other than the United Kingdom, the United States of America or Euratom. In all those cases there is provision for inspections to be carried out to ensure that the material is not used for military purposes.
Present-day techniques prevent the concealment or camouflage of equipment for the production of nuclear weapons. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashfield. Enormous installations, vast electrical power, and huge security precautions are required before nuclear weapons are manufactured. As far as I can see, Germany cannot produce atomic weapons in any clandestine way.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should not like my speech to be misunderstood. I had not only Germany in mind when I mentioned the production of nuclear weapons. I am convinced that the present German Government are adhering loyally to their undertaking not to make them, and that they have no intention of making them.

Mr. Allan: I did not wish to misrepresent my hon. and gallant Friend. I think he will agree that the remarks that I made apply equally to all the W.E.U. countries concerned. That is particulary so because there are inspectors—albeit non-expert inspectors—who can go into any part of these countries and demand to see any installation.

Mr. Warbey: I was not referring to clandestine production in Germany. I said that there was nothing to prevent Germany from entering into joint production arrangements with, shall we say, France, or purchasing such weapons from abroad.

Mr. Allan: That would be impossible if the Agency was working on the control of the level of armaments. The Armaments Control Agency could find out the level, and if the French were

manufacturing more than they were permitted to, whatever they were doing with their products, the Agency could get on to them.
A number of other points have been raised. My hon. and gallant Friend read the Article of the Treaty which said that the internal defence and police forces of the member states of W.E.U. on the mainland of Europe should be fixed by agreement within the organisation of Western European Union having regard to their proper function and to their existing level. Such an agreement has been made, and the United Kingdom has ratified it. The Council regularly urges other member countries to expedite their ratification. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned that we had already attempted to ratify the Convention establishing a tribunal. Had it not been for a drafting error in the Order in Council we would have been in a position to ratify the Convention, which is the only remaining item that needs ratification by the United Kingdom. Our record on that is fairly good.
I should like to turn for a moment to another issue that has been raised. It has been said that by allowing modifications to the Treaty we are destroying the guarantee against German military power which the creation of the Arms Control Agency sought to give. The Treaty has been modified three times. The first modification permitted the Germans to manufacture guided antitank missiles. The second permitted them to build one training ship of between 4,800 and 5,000 tons. The third permitted them to manufacture proximity fuses and various other anti-aircraft missiles. These are for defence purposes only and, even when they are manufactured, the number of them is still subject to control by the Agency.
I want to say a word about the other weapons which Germany now possesses or is about to possess, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and spoken of in more detail by the hon. Member for Ashfield. It cannot be said too often that Germany possesses no nuclear weapons. The Germans are now being provided with certain missiles, but without the warheads to go with them where those warheads have any nuclear capa-


bility. The hon. Gentleman read from The Times— I happened to see it this morning—a list of the weapons which Germany is to have, not which she has. The Hawk, which he mentioned, is a missile with a conventional warhead. There is no question of Germany having nuclear warheads to Mace at all. The range of Mace, about which the hon. Gentleman made great play, has been reported in The Times as, I think, nearly 1,000 miles, but I would not confirm that because it is really not my province to do so.
The point really is that, even if these missiles would carry warheads which had any nuclear capability, the warheads are not and never can be under German control. The warheads are held under the personal control of the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and in no circumstances could they be made available to any German unit other than on the Supreme Allied Commander's direct order.
I emphasise, also, that these missiles, not weapons, are being supplied to Germany. Germany is not manufacturing them at all. The Germans are not permitted to manufacture any atomic or nuclear weapons, and it is specifically laid down in the Treaty that it cannot be modified to permit Germany to manufacture such weapons. That in itself is the assurance for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks in that very matter.

Mr. Warbey: Mr. Warbey rose—

Mr. Allan: For the sake of those to come, I think that we ought to draw this discussion to a close.
I am glad that we have had this debate. If it has done nothing else, it will have assured those who work so devotedly in the Control Agency of the interest we take in their work and the support we are prepared to give them. The support has come from both sides of the House. In particular, I echo the tribute paid by my hon. and gallant Friend to Admiral Ferreri, the director of the Agency. It is largely as a result of his strenuous and thoughtful efforts that the Agency has been so successful in fulfilling its function, and I know that I speak for all Governments of Western European Union in expressing our appreciation not only of his work but of the tact and consideration he has shown in doing it.
My hon. and gallant Friend and others of my hon. Friends said that this Agency could well be the prototype for the wider control system which we seek. I hope that that is so. Certainly, if any such agency were established, we would hope that its staff would work with the zeal and efficiency shown by that of the Armaments Control Agency.

MATERNITY BEDS, GLASGOW

3.28 p.m.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising what I regard as a very serious matter, namely, the shortage of maternity beds in Glasgow. As everyone knows, Glasgow has immense problems of over-crowding and slum clearance. One would have thought that, because of those problems, Glasgow would have had better accommodation for maternity cases. The fact is that bad housing is matched by a serious shortage of maternity accommodation. Perhaps Glasgow is the worst area in Scotland. Mothers have been discharged from hospital on the same day as their babies have been born, not because of medical advice but simply because of shortage of accommodation.
On 8th December, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mothers had been discharged from the Royal Maternity Hospital on the same day as their babies were born during November. The reply given indicated that 12 mothers were so discharged in that month. Information in my possession is that on 17th November 10 mothers were discharged from hospital on the same day as their babies were born. Some were discharged at their own request and others were asked if they had someone to look after them at home and if there were a bathroom in the home. Relatives were invited to come to the hospital to take them home. When they got there they found those women had been transferred from the labour ward to beds in the corridor because of lack of accommodation in the wards. They were left there for practically three hours awaiting ambulances.
As a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother, this practice is all wrong and very harmful. Sooner or later, it is bound to have repercussions.


The Royal Samaritan Hospital, in Glasgow, can usually trace the trouble from which patients suffer to not having greater care after confinements. I can understand a mother being anxious to leave hospital if she has left a child at home, but is not this the type of patient we are most anxious to see slay in hospital for three or four days for a well-earned rest before going home to cope with her household tasks? The Royal Maternity Hospital is 125 years old. There are wards in general hospitals for maternity cases, but they are not enough.
In reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), the Secretary of State for Scotland said that within sixteen to eighteen months 90 beds will be available and another 110 units at York-hill will come into use in 1964. That will be 200 additional beds in five years. Under present conditions that is most unsatisfacary. Thousands of babies will be born between now and 1964. There are many private maternity homes in the City of Glasgow which were originally large dwelling-houses. Why cannot the Government acquire such large dwellings as may be unoccupied and, as a matter of urgency convert them into maternity homes?
Assuming that there was ample accommodation and a patient asked to go home on the day her baby was born, do we think that the doctor would agree? I do not. If she persisted, I am sure that the doctor would want her to sign a paper exonerating the hospital from further responsibility. This is a most serious matter. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise how serious it is. I am a former member of a hospital board, and no one has a greater admiration for the efficiency and skill of surgeons, doctors and nurses than I have. My complaint is only one of many, however, and the blame rests entirely with the Government because of their inability to provide the accommodation so urgently needed to cope with the very serious problem which exists in the City of Glasgow.
May I refer to a letter which I received no later than yesterday? It reveals a horrible state of affairs. The woman concerned was sent home after 24 hours in the maternity hospital. According to the letter, she had to wait four hours

for an ambulance. On the way to her home, the ambulance called at the Royal Infirmary, which is quite a distance from the maternity hospital, and picked up an elderly couple. From there it travelled to the Western Infirmary, still some distance away, and picked up an elderly gentleman. All this was done before the woman was taken home to her own house on the first day of the birth of her baby. She was put into the ambulance by a nurse wearing a mask, but three elderly people were picked up by the ambulance and, although the young baby was still there, they were not wearing masks.
While this lady was at home, she never had a visit from a doctor although it was known when she was discharged from hospital that not all of the afterbirth had been taken away. A nurse called daily but left her for good on the eighth day. The next day, the woman was taken seriously ill. Her husband tried to contact his own doctor, who was out making his calls, and then had to contact the hospital from which she had been discharged. A doctor arrived immediately and, when he had seen her, he ordered the woman to he taken to hospital suffering from childbed fever. She had to have a piece of the afterbirth removed. This woman could have been dead in 12 hours, never mind eight days. In my opinion and justifiably, she feels that she has been disgracefully treated. I intend to pass the letter to the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
We are nearing the end of 1959. Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland my sincere wish that he will make it his New Year's resolution to explore every possible avenue to provide more maternity accommodation in 1960, and not 1964?

3.38 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I, too, am delighted that this opportunity has been afforded us, and particularly that it has been afforded to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), to introduce this topic into the House. It is particularly appropriate at this time, since in the near future we shall be celebrating the Nativity, that we should talk on this subject and should think very hard whether all that can be


done is, in fact, being done by way of the assistance which we can give to women who are about to go through this great trial and great joy. I am bound to say that an examination which I have made of the history of the provision of maternity accommodation in Glasgow seems to suggest ineptitude and maladministration on the part of the Government.
If that charge and those words are too harsh, let the Joint Under-Secretary of State tell us where the fault lies, because these conditions in Glasgow must not continue very much longer. It is indicative of the kind of society in which we live that, despite the introduction of radar, jet planes, atomic energy, and automation, and all the other facilities to make life easier by way of travel and comfort, we contrive in the City of Glasgow to provide only 50 per cent. of the beds necessary for mothers in this category, whereas in the City of Aberdeen the figure is 90 per cent., in Dundee 80 per cent., in Edinburgh 80 per cent., and the average for Scotland is 70 per cent.
No doubt the Joint Under-Secretary of State will have some reasons to give. I hope that they are very good reasons. He should not try to bemuse people with the glitter of transient things instead of getting down to the fundamental provision of good social services. I understand that it is six years since Glasgow Corporation approached the Department of Health and the Western Regional Hospital Board about the need for more maternity beds in the City. Just prior to the 1955 General Election the Government, with a great flourish of trumpets, announced a hospitals building programme. The hon. Gentleman is very well acquainted with the gentleman who announced that programme. I do not want to suborn him from his filial loyalties, but it was the present Lord Strathclyde, who has been recently lauding the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board. The present incumbent of the Under-Secretaryship has the opportunity to do something about this badly needed service in Glasgow.
In the 1955 Report it was said that the hospital boards, now having advance information, would be able to plan ahead. It was said that an increase of£300,000 was to be provided for hospital building. When the election had been won, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West

(Mr. W. Hamilton) received a reply from the Secretary of State saying that he could assure us that:
Regional hospital boards are making the fullest efforts, consistent with the maintenance of services to patients, to restrain expenditure on hospital running costs."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 21st February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 17.]
It is part of the charge which we want to lay at the Government's door that it is their overall economic policy of restrictions, particularly since 1957 and 1958, that has led to the present dreadful situation in Glasgow. In a Written Answer on 12th December, 1956, the Secretary of State, in reply to the former Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun, Sir J. Hutchison, said:
In 1958–59 it is proposed to start three further schemes…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 68.]
That was for maternity accommodation. The third-named scheme was a new maternity hospital in Glasgow. Despite the fact that since 1955 Glasgow Corporation had been pressing the Western Regional Hospital Board and the Government about accommodation, three years afterwards the announcement was made that it was to start in 1958–59.
In reply to a question by the former Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, Mrs. Mann, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, now Lord Craigton, said:
There may be some adjustment of the starting dates of the major hospital building projects planned for start in 1958–59, but the programme announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) on 12th December last, still stands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1957: Vol. 575, c. 6.]
It does not bring much satisfaction to know that a programme still stands. What we are interested in is the start of the programme and its completion. So we go on through Questions in July, 1958, and the Secretary of State told me on 25th November, 1958, that the planning of this hospital was well under way. That was November, 1958, but in previous replies it was supposed to have been started in 1958–59. The actual reply was:
The planning of this hospital is well under way, and I can assure the hon. Member that construction will start as soon as the preparatory work has been completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 203.]
That preparatory work started last week—last week. The Government can


now claim that they have kept their pledge, but only by about fourteen days, and even then it is not building construction work but only site clearance. The Secretary of State was not aware, when replying to me on 28th July that the hospital would start in 1959–60, that the start of the hospital had been delayed for a further year.
In reply to a debate on the Supplementary Estimates for the National Health Service, Scotland, in March of this year, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), replying in the absence of the other two Ministers, made a most remarkable speech. Instead of handing out the excuses and evasions that had up till then been employed, his speech gave the real reasons for the present disgraceful situation. He said:
A year ago, when the£was under pressure and expenditure had to be severely restricted as part of the Government's measures to protect the£, we set the hospitals in Scotland the task of saving about£400,000 on their annual expenditure. That was to he their contribution to stability. That saving has been very largely achieved by careful economy, as the result of reductions in demand and appropriate action, notably in tuberculosis treatment in hospital…My right hon. Friend and I are grateful to the hospital authorities for their excellent co-operation with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1959: Vol. 601. c. 1539.]
Co-operation indeed! It was coersion. The Government told the regional hospital boards just what they were to spend. And to say that economies had been achieved at the expense of some of the frightful conditions that my hon. Friend has mentioned is certainly not to the credit of the present Government.
This position exists in face of the valuable report published by the Scottish Health Services Council on the maternity services. Breaking down the conditions in Scotland, the report made various salient points. Referring to the 70 per cent. distribution of institutional confinements, the Council made a comparison between one local authority and another and gave the figures I have already quoted.
In addition, it made a comparison in respect of the regions themselves, and said:
Only the Western Region, at 65 per cent. is below the national figure of 70 per cent. (Glasgow as low as 57·6 per cent. if only National Health Service accommodation is counted); the three smaller regions are all above 74 per cent…

Paragraph 82 is very pertinent to my hon. Friend's remarks:
As to overcrowding and length of stay in hospital, the average length of stay in obstetric units in the Western Region is again markedly shorter than in the other Regions, and it is obvious that there is very little margin for the occasional emergencies…
This group of experts evidently thought it unwise and undesirable for mothers to leave hospital before the end of ten days, yet we now have cases quoted of mothers being discharged from hospital on the same day.
It is really a shocking state of affairs. Some of the newspapers were inclined to think that that adjective was too strong, because when I used it in the debate we had the week before last, they put it in inverted commas. I will now go further and say that the state of affairs is appalling. It is a great criticism of present-day conditions that we should be providing all the glitter of a false society while leaving the fundamentals of a decent civilised life in abeyance. The Council gave two main reasons: first, that the mothers were not strong enough to be discharged from hospital, and secondly, that there was a shortage of domiciliary midwives. We went to make it clear that we make no charge against the medical people, the surgeons and nurses involved. We say that there is pressure on them, that there is lack of accommodation and, if I may apply the term to this noble profession, the turnover is the important thing to the people in the hospitals—to get these mothers in and out as quickly as possible.
One of the arguments that the Joint Under-Secretary may advance is that there is a danger of infection. But it is the overcrowding, as I understand it, which itself causes the danger of the spread of infection. The obstetricians are extremely annoyed about the early discharges.
As I say, the vital and central factor in this matter is the shocking shortage of maternity beds. The local authority met the Western Regional Hospital Board and the Department of Health on 28th March, 1958 and put its case for an increase of 250 to 300 beds but got no satisfaction. On 26th March, this year, the local authority again asked for a meeting and met the Western Regional Hospital Board. The corporation was informed that the Board proposed to


provide 81 beds in existing hospitals within 18 months. But to do something in 18 months' time will not be of any use; neither is 1964. By 1964 many of the teen-agers and children at school today will themselves be married, because that is one of the features of our society today. The Government must shake themselves together and do something about this problem.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock) rose—

3.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I am very sorry to have to keep out the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), but he will realise that we are working to a timetable and this debate is intended to finish in seven minutes' time.
The hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), in initiating the debate, spoke mainly about mothers being discharged from the Royal Maternity Hospital, in Glasgow, on the day on which they were confined. This is one aspect of the general problem of the development of the maternity services in Glasgow to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has also drawn attention.
I was very glad when the hon. Member for Maryhill and, I think, the hon. Lady indicated that they were complaining about the shortages of beds for maternity cases in Glasgow and that neither of them were making any reflection on the quality of the care given by the doctors and nurses who serve in this hospital.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady on the very feeling way in which she has presented her case. Childbirth is a matter of intense interest to every one of us, and the hon. Lady's Question on this subject, combined with this debate, has, naturally, aroused considerable publicity in Scotland. I therefore welcome the opportunity which this debate provides of giving the facts and allaying any fears which may have been aroused unintentionally.
I should like to begin with the hon. Lady's main point about the mothers who were discharged on the day of delivery. As the hon. Lady probably knows, important building alterations

are being carried out at the Royal Maternity Hospital. This has increased the pressure on beds to the extent that the staff sometimes have had to discharge mothers to their homes on the day of delivery.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Why?

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will hear why. In these cases the mothers had normal confinements and had been admitted to hospital only because their homes were unsuitable for confinement and not because of medical need. The reason why they were discharged early was to enable other expectant mothers whose condition urgently required hospital confinement to be admitted.
The hon. Lady mentioned 10 discharges on one day. There must have been some exaggeration. I have checked the numbers with the hospital and the maximum number discharged on any one day in November was three. Three were discharged on the day to which the hon. Lady referred, 17th November. The remainder of the 12 mothers were discharged on various other days during November and the maximum number on any other day was two. This does not alter the position concerning the individual mothers, but it shows that there was not a sudden or wholesale discharge of mothers from the hospital on any one day.
The House will realise that no one would wish to resort to the practice of very early discharge except under extreme pressure of beds. The hon. Lady said that the remedy for this state of affairs was more beds and the hon. Member for Maryhill made the same point. Later in the debate, I hope to be able to give an account of what the regional hospital board is doing to improve the supply of beds.
Meanwhile, however, I would like to make it quite clear that the doctors at the Royal Maternity Hospital are most careful to ascertain that the patients concerned are fit to go home and that proper arrangements are made for the medical and nursing care of the mothers after their discharge. I cannot emphasise this point too clearly.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Is not the hon. Gentleman tending to misrepresent, perhaps unintentionally, the position of the


doctors? My experience of the doctors at that hospital—and I know some of them now serving there—is that none of them would agree to the discharge of these patients save under administrative pressure, not because of medical opinion. I have never yet heard an obstetrician express the opinion that he should discharge a woman from hospital on the same day as her child is delivered. That is nonsense.

Mr. Galbraith: If, tomorrow, the hon. Member reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will be able to appreciate exactly what I said.
Of the 12 cases to which I have referred, 6 were from the district of Glasgow, in which the domiciliary midwifery services are provided by the district nursing staff of the Royal Maternity Hospital. These patients, therefore, were visited in accordance with the normal practice twice daily after discharge by the district midwife from the hospital and the doctor from the hospital visited them as required, usually once a day. The other patients were discharged to the care of their own family doctors only after those doctors had confirmed that they would be willing to take over the care of the mothers when they were discharged, with the assistance of the domiciliary service provided by Glasgow Corporation. Therefore, all of these mothers had a high degree of medical care.
The reason why some mothers are discharged early after their confinement—this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock in his intervention—is because the hospital is trying to extend the service it provides so as to meet the urgent need of mothers in Glasgow whose home conditions are not suitable for confinement. This, of course, is in addition to those who, on medical grounds, require hospital attention. What happens is that after confinement has taken place and when it is normal, the doctors have to balance the needs of one mother against the needs of another mother with a suspected complication who arrives and must be admitted to the hospital.

Mr. Hannan: Mr. Hannan rose—

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has made a long speech and we are short of time. I must finish in a minute and a half and I shall press on.
In future, however, all patients who have to be discharged early from the Royal Maternity Hospital will be offered a bed at the Ross Maternity Hospital for the remainder of their lying-in period. This practice has usually been followed in the past, but I am not able to say categorically that it was done in every case in November. I hope that the information I have given will show the hon. Lady that the hospital staff does not arrange these discharges thoughtlessly, or without taking every step open to them to ensure that the patient is as well cared for as is possible.

Mrs. Cullen: Would the hon. Gentleman say something about the case which I mentioned to him yesterday?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady mentioned a case today, but I do not know whether it is the case of a Mrs. O'Neil.

Mrs. Cullen: That is right.

Mr. Galbraith: If I am right in that assumption, I have been able to make a fairly full inquiry about it. I think that it would be unfair both to the hospital and to the ambulance service to let the matter rest on the description given by the hon. Lady's correspondent. I must point out, however—and I hope the hon. Lady will not take it amiss—that it is very difficult to answer at short notice the kind of question of fact such as the hon. Lady raised. It is very much better for all concerned that, if possible. the facts should be agreed beforehand, as otherwise our debates tend to be rather valueless.
So far as I am able to ascertain, Mrs. O'Neil was admitted to the Royal Maternity Hospital on the last day of September, having arrived unexpectedly in an advanced state of labour. Because of her condition, she could not have been sent to another hospital, and next day the Royal Maternity Hospital found it necessary to discharge her, due to pressure on beds.
The ambulance to take her home was sent for at four o'clock, but, because of other calls on the ambulance service at that time, the ambulance did not arrive at the hospital until 5.30. All the time, I would point out, Mrs. O'Neil was in bed. All mothers are kept in bed until they are taken to the ambulance, and, therefore, any delay does not affect the mother, though I agree that it might


affect relatives who were waiting to collect them. Two patients, one of whom was Mrs. O'Neil, from the Royal Maternity Hospital were then put in the ambulance, and another was collected at the Western Infirmary on the way to these patient's homes. All three patients, however, had been delivered to their homes by five minutes to seven. On her arrival at her home, Mrs. O'Neil was looked after in her home by the district staff.
Mrs. O'Neil's convalescence proceeded normally for ten days. On the eleventh day, however, she had to be admitted to Robroyston Hospital with a complication. She was discharged from that hospital fit and well on 20th October. The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not for me to make professional assessments in these matters, but I am advised that it is unlikely that there is any connection between the complication which arose on the eleventh day after the confinement and the patient's early discharge from hospital, or the length of time spent in the ambulance on her way home.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Who said so?

Mr. Galbraith: That is the advice I have been given.
I should like very quickly now to deal with the general points raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill, who referred to the general situation. In recent years, there has been an increase of 100 beds, but until the Montgomery Committee reported in 1959 there was no authoritative assessment of the number of beds required in Glasgow. On the basis of the formula suggested by the Montgomery Committee's Report, it appears that there is now a gap of 146 beds. The moment the regional board received this Report, it looked into the matter and considered what could he done, and, on present plans, within eighteen months the number will be raised to 792 beds, and, through the building of the York-hill Maternity Hospital, to 902.
I am glad to be able to say—

Dr. Dickson Mahon: That will be five years. What happens then?

Mr. Galbraith: The work has already started. The hon. Gentleman seems to doubt that. Work has already started

on the site on building the foundations, which is the first step, but the amount of new building involved means that it will take three or four years until the number of beds has been brought up to standard.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: What happens afterwards?

Mr. Galbraith: I must press on. I cannot deal with that now.
One very important aspect of this matter is the procedure for selecting patients for admission to hospital. There are already available in Glasgow enough beds to make it possible to take all the cases likely to require entry to hospital on medical grounds. These include all first births and fourth and subsequent births and other cases in which admission is required because of abnormality or other medical difficulties. The existing number of available beds is also sufficient to provide for cases which require ante-natal care in hospital.
In addition, there is also available within the existing provision a certain number of beds for patients for whom admission is desirable on social grounds only, and by this I mean that their home conditions are not suitable for confinement. To some extent, therefore, the present problem in Glasgow is one of regulating admission in such a way as to admit those cases which require admission on medical and on social grounds.
The present arrangements, I think, could be improved. My Department has just had very useful discussions with the regional hospital board and Glasgow Corporation, and I have asked the hospital board to pursue the problem urgently with the consultant obstetricians. The Corporation has said that through the medical officer of health it is prepared to select the urgent cases from amongst those who seek admission on social rather than on medical grounds. If such an arrangement were made I think it would have the result that, till the number of beds can be increased by new building, the best use would be made of the resources which we have on the basis both of social and medical need.
I want to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is very much concerned about Glasgow's maternity services. He shares fully the


desire of all concerned, and which has been expressed very feelingly today, to have an adequate number of beds to provide the kind of service which Glasgow needs. I hope that the plans which are now in hand, and which I have described, will substantially achieve all these objects within the next two or three years. This will very largely be controlled by the speed at which building can go ahead, and not by the availability of money. The money is there. The regional hospital board will be doing what it can in the meantime to use to best advantage the substantial resources which are already available.
Lastly, I hope that what I have said today by way of providing a general background will also have shown that there is no justification for suggesting—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady did suggest it, but I have a feeling that, perhaps, it did get out in the Press that there was the suggestion—that the Royal Maternity Hospital is in any way agreeing to practices less than the highest standard of medical care.

Mr. Hannan: I reiterate that, but will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention to this point? Is it true that 1,000 beds are available in the West Regional Area because of the decline in tuberculosis? Will he do something about that?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must put a Question on the Order Paper. I certainly should not like either to confirm or deny that offhand.
What I should like to say is that the hospital is not indulging in any practices which do not represent the highest standard of medical care. The staff is a most devoted one. It has a high sense of service, and it is trying to do the very best it can for all the mothers concerned. It is working in conditions of great difficulty and strain, but given the job which it has to do, I am sure that Glasgow, and particularly the mothers of Glasgow, have good reason to be extremely grateful to the staff for the efficient and humane way in which it carries out its duties.

Mrs. Cullen: Would the hon. Gentleman say that it is right for a young couple and for three old people to be put into the same ambulance together, when the young mother has a child, and

without their having on masks? If they went visiting the mother with the child in a maternity hospital they would be required to put on masks. Here were three people put into the same ambulance with the mother. I am prepared to say that there is not one hon. Member on that side of the House who would allow his wife to leave hospital on the first day—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Lady to make a second speech, except by leave of the House, which, in these circumstances, I venture to think, she might not get.

ST. LUKE'S PRINTING WORKS, FINSBURY (USE)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: Because of the time factor. I shall endeavour to avoid repeating what I said in connection with the subject which I shall discuss today on 27th July when the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, as it then was. was before the House. The Council, through the Bill, sought powers to acquire and redevelop St. Luke's Printing Works as an annexe of Covent Garden Market.
If I may be permitted to digress for a few moments, I should like to recall that the House on 9th December debated traffic congestion. In the course of the debate hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House stated that traffic conditions were becoming more serious in all parts of the country. In my view, it was conceded in that debate that the conditions in Central London were far more serious than in any other part of London or of the country. Indeed, it was suggested that unless the Minister did something quite dramatic and spectacular there was the likelihood that the resulting conditions would bring the movement of traffic in Central London to a complete standstill.
It is clear, therefore, that we must not do anything to increase the volume of traffic in Central London. The Government will probably regard this as a piece of unnecessary advice, but this is precisely what would be the result of following the recommendations in Cmnd. 880 on Horticulture. Paragraph 25 of that White Paper contains a statement to the effect that an annexe to Covent Garden is to


be set up at the junction of Old Street and City Road, one of the busiest intersections in Central London. The House may gather some idea of what this means when I say that the traffic census of 1938 showed that nearly 35,000 vehicles per day passed over that intersection, and by day was meant the twelve hours which are considered to be the basic period during which traffic would be at a fairly high peak.
I should like to quote from a survey which was carried out by the Road Research Department of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It says:
The survey includes all main traffic routes in an area bounded roughly by Edgware Road, King's Cross, Shoreditch Church, Tower Bridge, the Elephant and Castle, the Oval, Vauxhall Bridge and Hyde Park Corner.
The Report claims that surveys were carried out on 230 junctions in Central London.
I submit that that is a fairly comprehensive scientific survey. It also stated that vehicles using the length of Old Street between the junction of Old Street, and City Road travel at an average speed of 5·6 m.p.h., and those using the Moorgate approach to the junction move at an average of 6·7 m.p.h. These speeds are regarded as the worst in Central London. This traffic comes largely from London Docks and the east—west roads from Bethnal Green, Hackney, Shore-ditch, the Oval, through Vauxhall and on to the West End of London. Conditions at present are appalling throughout the working day. It is quite clear that the only reason why the traffic does not substantially increase at this junction is simply that saturation point has been reached.
In view of this state of affairs, a scheme, the estimated cost of which is£2 million, has been approved and is due to commence in 1960–61. This scheme simply is to construct a roundabout, and, of course, it is welcome, but it is well overdue. We in Shoreditch and Finsbury have for some years been trying to convince the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport of the need for improving the junction of City Road and Old Street to allow an easier flow of traffic. Indeed, at one time we were of the opinion that if nothing were done traffic would simply pile

up in the area and there would be little or no movement. The scheme will probably meet the immediate need once the improvements are completed. Whether it will be adequate, in view of prevailing conditions, in five or six years' time, it is difficult to say.
I should like to consider what the policy on Covent Garden means to this intersection. Recently, I led a deputation from Shoreditch and Finsbury to the L.C.C. to protest against this proposal in respect of the St. Luke's Printing Works. During our discussions with the L.C.C., it was stated that 500 market vehicles from Covent Garden wait at this intersection at any one time. This figure was given to me by the L.C.C., which acts as agent for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. These vehicles come through Old Street from the London Docks and from Covent Garden market itself.
The dock traffic has to travel across some of the worst congested areas in London. At Gardiner's Corner, during the same twelve-hour period which I have mentioned, there are 34,000 vehicles a day. It is almost impossible to get through Commercial Street and Spitalfields Market between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. because of the enormous amount of market traffic and buses. Police are on duty almost every hundred yards to ensure a flow of traffic at a speed probably of no more than two or three miles an hour. Traffic has to go through Spitalfields Market and Commercial Street, and then to Bishopsgate and Shoreditch High Street, where there is a railway goods yard. Goods traffic from there is almost continuous because the depot deals with parcels as well as heavy goods.
There is a constant flow of heavy traffic in the Bethnal Green Road, which is one of the gateways to the south-west, and is considered to be one of the worst junctions in London. Great Eastern Street, Old Street and Pitfield Street run into the main artery road, the A.5. Recently, the Shoreditch Borough Council, in conjunction with the police, installed light control signals. Despite the fact that they have tried to effect certain improvements to allow an easier flow of traffic, one or two policemen, certainly at least one, have to be on duty throughout the day to avoid the possibility of traffic dislocation.


The traffic from Covent Garden Market to Old Street—when the House discusses as frequently as any other subject the problems of traffic, it is of some importance to appreciate just what we are having to consider at the moment—will have to travel through Kingsway and Southampton Row with nearly 45,000 vehicles per day, through St. Giles's Circus with nearly 39,000 vehicles per day and Theobalds Road with 37,500 vehicles per day. These figures cover a twelve-hour period, and that means that some 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles are crossing those junctions at any given hour within that period. Both Shore-ditch and Finsbury have made strong protests to the London County Council, urging it to abandon this insane proposal before it goes beyond the point of no return.
I beg the Government to think again before they commit themselves to the expenditure of more than£1¼million of public money for the purchase of the Old Street site. So far I have not heard a single impartial observer justify the site. Indeed, all I have got from the London County Council is an agreement that traffic conditions will be aggravated but an assurance that the approved roundabout is to be speeded up and that something further will be done to improve traffic conditions at Spitalfields Market.
I would ask the Minister what is the point of spending millions of pounds in trying to solve the problem of congestion in Central London if we are to convert the St. Luke's Printing Works as an annexe to Covent Garden in an area where we know it must inevitably cause the kind of congestion that we are trying to avoid and which we are discussing every day. As the number of vehicles increases, further problems will have to be solved. Surely we do not want to create further difficulties after our experience gained in the past?
I have dealt with the traffic problems because I know that we are all particularly concerned. It is estimated that next April there will be some 500,000 extra vehicles—cars, lorries and vans of all descriptions—on the roads, and I think London will have its fair percentage. In the light of conditions as they exist today, it is of some importance for hon. Members to appreciate to what

extent this is likely to aggravate the situation.
Apart from the traffic situation, there are other considerations in Shoreditch and Finsbury which we cannot afford to overlook and which are more disturbing to the people of my constituency than those which I have already outlined. On the south side of Old Street and immediately opposite the proposed market site there are two schools, St. Luke's Church of England Parochial School and St. Joseph's School, which are attended by hundreds of children between the ages of 5 and 15. The staff at St. Luke's primary school say that it is almost impossible to teach in the infant and junior schools because of traffic anxiety and noise nuisance. There is only a very small playground, and the children have to travel to Coram's Fields for their games. Both schools are scheduled for modernisation and extension. St. Joseph's is a Roman Catholic school and will attract children from all parts of the borough. Many of these children will have to cross Old Street.
In Bath Street on the west side of the St. Luke's Printing Works we have the Moorfields Primary School which is due to be modernised and extended by the London County Council. Finsbury Borough Council is now in the process of completing its Galloway Street housing scheme, which is immediately opposite and which will house 200 families and include a library and old people's dwellings.
What is even more important is that the Moorfield Eye Hospital is adjacent to this site and has a daily attendance of about 750 out-patients. In addition, there are always 200 in-patients. It is of paramount importance in the treatment of those patients that they should not make any involuntary movement and the results of a sudden noise may cause further injury to their eyes. Noise will inevitably reach its highest peak during the night and may seriously jeopardise the treatment of patients. In addition, an extension is being built to accommodate 200 members of the staff who now have to travel by coach from Kensington. If the scheme is allowed to go forward, it will be impossible for the nursing staff to get the rest they so well deserve. Those who have cars will appreciate the amount of


noise made by a large vehicle making a right angle turn into Bath Street and slowing down and changing into the lowest gear to get into Baldwin Street. That means that there will be a screaming noise of gears day and night.
The people of Shoreditch and Finsbury are now coming to appreciate what is happening. Within a few hours of letters having gone from the Shoreditch and Finsbury Councils, no fewer than 85 letters were received from a cross-section of the community, without exception expressing indignation and concern at this proposal. Those with large commercial undertakings are already finding it difficult to conduct their own businesses and the proposal will add to those difficulties.
I beg the Minister to reconsider the proposed use of St. Luke's Printing Works and I urge that the four-year temporary period for the use of the Caledonian Market be taken up to provide time to find a more suitable site. This is of some importance when one considers the present conditions in Central London. Unless we do something about the problem, we shall have reason to regret it in the not too distant future.
I believe that the only reason for the present proposal is that there has been far too much pressure from the trade itself, from Covent Garden Market. I believe that the trade has been laying down conditions about where it will and where it will not go, despite the fact that it is responsible for the conditions.
The behaviour of London County Council has been scandalous. The Finsbury Council was never informed about what was going on. In a major scheme of this kind, the local authority concerned has a right at least to be told something about it and to be asked for observations and whether the scheme is likely to have the serious effects which we now know are very possible. The objections and protests from the locality are growing in momentum and I assure the Minister that Shoreditch and Finsbury will continue this fight not only for their own safety and convenience, but because they believe that to do so is in the interests of London as a whole.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I make one observation? I hope that, whatever the Minister says in reply

to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), there will in no circumstances be any departure from the solemn assurance given in the House that the Caledonian Market site, in Islington, will not be used as an annexe for Covent Garden Market.
It was on that basis, as the Minister knows, that in July of this year the House assented to both the London County Council's General Powers Bill and the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, and I hope that he will be able to say that there will be no departure from that solemn assurance.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We are very anxious, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) should have an opportunity to initiate his debate. As you said, you designate subjects for debate on the Adjournment, and I think that we should see that, as far as possible, the hon. Member, who has waited patiently all day, has his opportunity.
We are discussing the Horticulture Bill in Standing Committee, and about that part of the White Paper there is general agreement, but I must say that there is a good deal of concern about the other part. I would beg the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider generally the question of wholesale marketing in the light of the proposals which the Government have made. We do not regard them as either adequate or realistic. I hope that, in spite of the Government having expressed their views, they will reconsider these matters before we consider the second Bill on horticulture, which we shall have before the House this Session.

4.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secertary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I am very anxious that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and other hon. Members waiting to speak on the important subject that he wishes to raise shall have an opportunity to do so. Therefore, I propose to take only a few minutes in replying to this important debate. That is


not because I am in any way suggesting that it is not worthy of longer discussion.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), we have not changed our view in any way on that point. I will, therefore, say no more on that.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who with his customary brevity, got to the root of the matter, will not, I am sure, expect me to comment on the points which he made. We shall have ample opportunity for doing that in the future. I have noted the concern that he has expressed, but he will realise that we have a very difficult problem. We have had some criticism but we should have even more if we did not face the problem
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) spoke with great sincerity and conviction. I understand his point of view, but he has not given ine much time in which to reply and I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with only a few of the points which he raised.
The Government's proposals for Covent Garden were announced in the White Paper on Horticulture and the provision of a storage annexe somewhere reasonably near to Covent Garden for the storage of bulk produce and empty containers is a most important, indeed a vital, part of our proposals. It is a prerequisite of any plans for getting rid of the appalling congestion and fire risk in the market area —a problem which everyone has so far fought shy of tackling. It is also the key to the next stage of our plans for modernising and improving this important national horticultural market.
In our search for an annexe, we all realised that there would not be an ideal site. We knew that, whatever site we were considering, it would almost certainly be regarded as unsuitable by local residents, whether in Shoreditch, Finsbury or anywhere else. The problem that we have to face is that unless there is a site for a storage annexe all the plans we have for improving Covent Garden which, by common consent, are not only desirable, but urgent and essential, cannot even be started. In the general interest, therefore, we must ask for the acceptance by some neighbour-

hood of an annexe which perhaps they would rather not have.
We have heard that Islington is not keen to have it, but that is a little further away than Shoreditch and Finsbury. To whatever place we go we shall have the same problem. It is not so much that we were frightened away from one to the other, but that the other site was definitely more desirable. After the most thorough search it was agreed that St. Luke's was the best site available. Indeed, it was the only one available, or likely to be available in the foreseeable future, that could be used with any measure of success. It is large enough, and it is also reasonably near to the market.
The hon. Member has mentioned the objections to having the annexe in this spot, but he will realise that the premises are available, in any case, for private development or letting, and that under the planning law they could be put to commercial or industrial uses. some of which would be open to all or most of the objections raised by the hon. Member, Moreover, in private use there would be no power to require provision for parking and loading within the site, unless planning permission for new development had to be obtained.
The authority's storage building will he specially designed, and the whole site will be specially planned to allow the vehicles using it to move freely and he parked on the site itself. There should be no need for parking on the roadway. The hon. Member said that we must not Increase the traffic in Central London. In fact, we shall not being doing that. We shall be diversifying some of the traffic which is now congesting Covent Garden, and it must also be remembered —and this is a fact which he has underlined himself—that much of this traffic will not occur during the normal hours, when other traffic is congesting the streets. We should be able to spread this traffic and get rid of the present delays in Covent Garden. Much of the traffic will then be able to disperse before the hours when other traffic comes along.
The authority will consult all the local authorities concerned, including the London County Council, when it is planning the control of the traffic on the site and, in particular, the entrances and exits. We recognise that even a small


increase in traffic can be a serious matter on a busy route, and for this reason we attach great importance to the fact that the London County Council, as the statutory road improvement authority, is already considering early improvements to the route between St. Luke's and Covent Garden. I would only mention, in passing—although the hon. Member went into some detail—that the Council has plans for the Old Street-City Road junction which will greatly increase its capacity to deal with traffic. It has also said that it will be prepared to consider improvements to other road junctions. By no means all the traffic using the Old Street route will be new traffic; market vehicles are already using it on their way to Covent Garden. We must not over-paint the picture.
The building will be properly designed for storage. It will be the responsibility of the authority to see that the London County Council's fire regulations are fully observed. I am confident, therefore, that there will be little or no risk of fire.
The St. Luke's neighbourhood is an area of mixed development, and the proposed use accords with the London Development Plan. The Minister saw a delegation from the Council yesterday and discussed the whole matter fully. The Minister assured the delegation—and I can repeat that assurance—that as little disturbance as possible will be caused. Every attempt will be made to minimise noise, and we shall fully consult the local authorities concerned on this and on the question of traffic and parking facilities.
We attach great importance to this development. We want to be good neighbours with the hon. Member if he will allow us to be so, and if he will accept this scheme in that spirit he will find that the picture is not nearly so bad as he has painted it. I am sorry that I have had such a short time to deal with the matter, but I wanted to give my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) time to raise his subject.

BERNARD SHAW'S LEGACY

4.39 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I wish to raise a general and not a particular question. Although it concerns the estate of the late George Bernard Shaw it is a question which applies to all estates in which the testator was intending and was legally entitled to benefit a section of the public by a legacy to a public institution and/or a legacy to a charitable institution, which is an institution wholly or in part supported from public funds.
The short point is that if the Exchequer contribution to such institutions is, by reason of the legacy, in any way reduced, the purpose of the testator is pro tanto frustrated, and the will rendered de facto void. I will now give the facts of the case. I have here Bernard Shaw's will, clauses 35 to 40 of which say:
I devise and bequeath all my real and personal estate…as to one-third…for the trustees of the British Museum"—
and we should note these words—
in acknowledgement of the incalculable value to me of my daily resort to that Reading Room of that Institution at the beginning of my career, as to one-third for the National Gallery of Ireland and as to the remaining one-third…for the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art.
As I say, it is a general point. Whether it be Shaw or anyone else it is important that the strictest regard should be paid to the terms of any such will and to the intentions of any such testator—all the more so when the benefaction and the intention is directed to the public benefit. Indeed, any other course—and I am not yet asserting that it has happened, only that I have reason to believe that it has or at any rate will otherwise happen—would be a vicious violation of a sacred trust and a stupid detriment to the future interests of the public.
Why should any trust testator ever again seek to benefit the public interest unless he may be assured that the solemn words of his last will and testament will not be rendered null and void and in effect scored out after he is dead? Surely, too, such a well-intentioned testator needs to be assured that his estate will not, in blatant contempt for the intentions of his will, be subjected to additional and unconstitutional Estate Duty.


Why so insult the dead and penalise the public by so discouraging all future attempts to improve the quality and quantity of public services without cost to the taxpayer? Why not, per contra, respect the wishes of the testator, and, in so doing, go out of our way to encourage such testamentary generosity directed to the benefit of the public?
It is not as if the Exchequer does not do very well out of such legacies in any case. Estate Duty has to be paid to the Exchequer as a first charge—in this case 70 per cent. on the top tranche of the valuation and a total of over£½million.
It will be seen, therefore, that any diminution of the sacred intentions of a will, by diminishing pro tanto or even in part, the Exchequer's contribution is in effect nothing but an underhand operation, a deceit on the dead, an unconstitutional tax on estate and a robbery of the living.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: But, of course, he is not really dead.

Mr. Pitman: Hear, hear.
It will be apparent to the House that Shaw's intention was not to benefit the generality of the taxpayers but rather those. relatively few in number, who would be using the thus better facilities of the Reading Room of the British Museum and those would-be actors, actresses and producers who would be thus better training themselves for a part in the dramatic arts—in the English language.
Some testators leave their money for reduction of the National Debt, and so to benefit the generality of taxpayers. Shaw did not. He left his money to two special selected sections precisely.
As I have said before in this House, Bernard Shaw asked me to keep a friendly eye on the carrying out of his will. In his name, therefore, I ask for him—indeed I consider that he is entitled to demand —that the money be used as he, the testator, intended, in the interests only of those two special sections of the public which are entitled to benefit and as thereby, incidentally, the public interest to encourage future generous testators requires.
Perhaps I ought to forestall a point which may be wrongly alleged, that the factor of degree is important. This cannot be so because, in the first place, it

is not relevant. It is an issue of principle which applies generally, however small or however big the estate may be—indeed, the bigger the estate the greater the benefit to the generality of taxpayers by Estate Duty and therefore the greater reason why the chosen section of the public should receive its entitlement to the very much smaller residue. In the second place, any difference in degree can be well taken care of by a suitable allocation to the future. Indeed, since Shaw's estate is not capital but only a vanishing income from his copyrights, it would be improper if the beneficiaries were not to set aside a substantial annual saving to enable the as yet unborn generations of those sections of the public to share, as the living generation will share, the benefits of Mr. Shaw's legacy.
The Financial Secretary ought to bear in mind that the same issue will arise for decision by the Irish Government. Let it not be said in the world of literature, and throughout the whole English-speaking world, that a great Irishman and genius of the English language who sought to help English literature and English drama found honourable respect for the terms of his will only in Ireland.

4.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): By leave of the House, I reply to this debate, having already replied to an Adjournment debate earlier this afternoon. I am very pleased indeed that we have had time for it and that the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) has been rewarded.
In the will of the late George Bernard Shaw, as I think the House knows, the Trustees of the British Museum, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and the National Gallery of Ireland were named as residuary legatees. The will directed that a trust be set up for the purpose of devising a new British alphabet, and went on to say that, if and so far as such a trust should fail by judicial decision or any other cause beyond his Trustee's control, a third of the estate should go to each of the residuary legatees. The third part assigned to the Trustees of the British Museum is described in the will as being
in acknowledgment of the incalculable value to me on my daily resort to the Reading Room of that Institution at the beginning of my career.


In 1956, the residuary legatees and the Attorney-General were defendants in an action brought by the Public Trustee with a view to establishing the validity of the Alphabet Trusts, on the ground that they were charitable or that, even if they were not charitable, they were valid and enforceable. The judgment of the court was, of course, that the Trusts were invalid. I fully recognise how much regret that decision must have caused my hon. Friend the Member for Bath who has been concerned with spelling reform and, indeed, a sincere advocate of such Measures in this House, even though, as he knows, he and I were not always quite on the same side.
Since that date, the residuary legatees have received payments of income from the estate. Owing to the fact that Estate Duty was levied on an assessment of the value of all the copyrights in Shaw's works, practically the whole of the cash assets in the estate were swallowed up in payment of duty, with the result that, in the period immediately after Shaw's death, there was virtually no income. But the House may be interested to know that, since the great success of "My Fair Lady", income from the estate has become very considerable. I am bound to say, in all fairness, that it is the only work of Shaw's which I have never enjoyed as much as the others. For the time being, the administration of the residuary estate remains in the hands of the Public Trustee.
I am very grateful, in the context of this debate, to the authorities of the British Museum for the information with which they have furnished me. I can tell the House that, at the present time, the Trustees of the British Museum are receiving about£2,000 a month from the estate. The total amount they have received to date is just over£163,924, and it is possible that they will receive up to£85,000 in repayments of Income Tax levied on the income of the estate prior to the settlement of the action.
The terms of Shaw's will—I think that this is really crucial to the point we are discussing this afternoon—make it clear that the bequest is unrestricted, in the sense that the Trustees of the British Museum are free to do what they like with their portion of it. I fully agree with my hon. Friend and, obviously, with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire

(Mr. Emrys Hughes)—incidentally it is a pleasure to be debating with him in such a friendly context this afternoon—in the strong feelings they have about carrying out Shaw's will correctly. I say quite genuinely that there is no greater admirer of Shaw's works in this House than myself. I was brought up to admire them, and I still not only find his plays remarkably brilliant intellectually, but I think that the best parts of "John Bull's Other Island" have a poetic quality which is found in very little drama in this country. I agree, therefore, that we all want to do justice to the name of an extremely great literary figure.
It is important, however, to be quite clear on this point that the bequest to the British Museum was unrestricted.
The Trustees have, in fact, decided two things: first. that as it is only for a limited period that they will benefit by this bequest—because within fifty years of his death copyright in the works of Bernard Shaw will lapse and income cease—the receipts from the copyright should for the present be used to build up a capital fund and not for current expenditure. I think that a very reasonable decision. When one has a wasting asset it seems a useful thing to build up a capital fund. Secondly, because of Shaw's statement in his will about the value to him of the use of the Reading Room at the British Museum, the Trustees have decided that the income from the new fund should in due course be used primarily for the benefit of the Library.
I know the Trustees would object strongly to any suggestion that they should use trust funds in a way which would merely reduce their demand on public funds, either to maintain an existing service or to start a new one. The Treasury would entirely sympathise with that view. It is accepted that all the running costs of a Vote-borne department at a level approved by the Treasury are a proper charge on the Exchequer. The Treasury even in times of great stringency in our national and economic affairs has never sought to argue that the cost of a service should be reduced by a contribution from other resources available to the Trustees, or that public funds should not be provided to improve a service merely because the Trustees could afford to do it themselves.


For the most part, trust moneys available to the various museums and galleries are restricted by the terms of the endowment to the purchase of objects of the collection. In a few cases they can be used to supplement the Vote provision for current expenses. For instance, the National Gallery regularly supplements the travel provision on Subhead B, and it may be that but for the availability of trust funds the Trustees would press for increased provision to be made on the Vote. But the Treasury in considering the Gallery's requirements for current purposes takes no account of any other income the Trustees may have available, but deals with the application on its merits in exactly the same way as if it were made by an institution which had no other resources. I mention that because I do not think there has been a convenient occasion for stating the principle, which I think is an important one, that in deciding the expenditure on Vote-borne departments we do not say that the Treasury contribution should be automatically reduced simply because some other source may become available.
It is quite true that when a museum asks for a special purchase grant, the Treasury asks what provision it can make from its own resources, including trust funds. It is not accepted policy that all exceptional acquisitions outside the scope of its annual purchase grant should be automatically financed by the Exchequer. The administration of trust funds is entirely at the discretion of the Trustees. The amounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but expenditure is not scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee or the Treasury.
I hope I have shown that the line taken by the Treasury and the Trustees of the British Museum is in no way inconsistent with the terms of Shaw's will, and therefore we are not doing any act of discourtesy or showing lack of due attention to the wishes of the dead. So far as later opening of the Reading Room is concerned, while still awaiting the Trustees' proposals for evening opening for an experimental period starting some time in the next financial year, I cannot say any more than when I answered a Question by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), but my right hon. Friend made it quite clear

that he promised to deal with the request in a sympathetic manner.
I do not want to deprive the hon. Member for South Ayrshire of the opportunity of addressing the House for two or three minutes on this Motion, but perhaps, as I am almost the last speaker today and it is for the first time that I am addressing the House at this time of the year, I may be allowed to wish you, Mr. Speaker, all hon. Members and visitors to this Chamber a Happy Christmas.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We all agree with what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in his tribute to Bernard Shaw. Shaw had a very good Christmas card. It was, "Cheer up, comrades; Christmas only comes once a year and does not last very long."
I assure the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) that there are people in the country who are watching very closely the interests of Bernard Shaw, not because we think he is dead but because we realise that his spirit is very much alive. I am not sure whether I am lost in a maze of legality, but I impress upon the Financial Secretary that the last thing Bernard Shaw would have wished was to relieve the Treasury. I hope that the Minister's speech does not mean that in some indirect way Bernard Shaw's literary work will finance the armaments programme or result in easing the expenditure which might otherwise be incurred by the Government on such things as hydrogen bombs, which would have been a horror to Bernard Shaw.
He had a great affection for the Reading Room of the British Museum, because when he did not have much money he went there not merely to read books but for warmth, as he explained. He realised that before him other great people who had contributed to the literature and thought of this country had also taken advantage of the facilities offered by the British Museum.
I knew Bernard Shaw almost up to the time of his death, and I can assure the Minister that when he said he wished to give money to the Reading Room for a specific purpose, he meant it, and he was not wishing to finance the British Museum Library. He may have wished it knowing that Karl Marx had produced


his monumental work in the British Museum. I hope that the Economic Secretary will be inspired to carry on his study of Bernard Shaw to the study of his predecessor, who also enjoyed the facilities of the British Museum.

Sir E. Boyle: I have read the first part of "Das Kapital" but I got stuck in the second part, and I defy anybody not to do the same.

Mr. Hughes: I always suspected that the hon. Member had got lost somewhere. I now understand where it was.
The hon. Member for Bath and I have noted with sympathy certain of the Minister's references. We will keep a most vigilant eye upon his activities and we hope that the results may be that, with our combined efforts, we may be able to see that the purpose for which Bernard Shaw left his money will be fulfilled.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 26th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.